Agenda item

Proposal

Hybrid Planning Application; Part Outline proposal for a new settlement with residential development comprising 1,800 units (Use Class C3), plus 7,500sqm care accommodation (Use Class C2); a local centre to comprise retail, financial and professional, cafes/restaurant/takeaway and/or public house up to a total of 2,150sqm (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5); new business uses including offices, and research and development industry (Use Class B1a and B1b) up to a maximum of 3,700sqm; light and general industry (Use Class B1c and B2) up to a maximum of 7,500sqm; storage and distribution (Use Class B8) up to a maximum of 11,000sqm; a further 9,966sqm of flexible commercial space (B1(b), B21(c), B2 and/or B8); non-residential institutions including health centre, relocation of existing Jigsaw School into new premises and provision of new community centre (Use Class D1) up to a maximum of 9,750sqm; a two-form entry Primary School; open space including water bodies, outdoor sports, recreational facilities, canal basin and nature conservation areas; public transport routes, footpaths and cycleways; landscaping; the removal of three runways; all related infrastructure including roads, car and cycle parking, energy plant and associated equipment, water supply, telecommunications, drainage systems and waste water treatment facilities;

 

Part Full application for the demolition of 8,029sqm of existing buildings and the retention of 36,692sqm of existing buildings, for their future use for a specified purpose as defined by the Use Classes as specified in the schedule of buildings and their uses; and the temporary use of Building 132 for a construction headquarters. This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (as amended by information and plans received 01/09/2016).

 

Recommendations

 

Recommendation A:

That, having regard to the environmental information contained in the application, the accompanying Environmental Statement (and addendum), together with proposals for mitigation, subject to the applicant entering into an appropriate legal agreement, within 6 months of the date of the committee resolution to grant planning permission, to secure the provision of/contributions towards: 30% on site affordable housing and market housing mix; education infrastructure, provision of canal basin, SuDS and Foul Water management/maintenance, on site health centre/surgery,  public open space provision and maintenance (including sports pitches, pavilion, public art and open space), cycleways, public access, off site highways improvements, travel plan, bus service provision, Community Trust, subject to conditions and subject to referral to the Secretary of State and no receipt of a direction calling-in the application, permission be GRANTED

 

Recommendation B:

That, in the event that the requirements of Recommendation A are not met, permission be REFUSED

Proposed development

 

Hybrid Planning Application;  Part Outline proposal with all matters reserved for a new settlement with residential development comprising: 1,800 units, 7,500 sqm care accommodation; a local centre to comprise retail,  financial and professional,  cafes/restaurant/takeaway and/or public house up to a total of 2,150 sqm; New business uses including offices, and research and development industry up to a maximum of 3,700 sqm; light and general industry up to a maximum of 7,500 sqm; storage and distribution up to a maximum of 11,000 sqm; a further 9,966 sqm of flexible commercial space; Non-residential institutions including health centre, relocation of existing Jigsaw School into new premises and provision of new community centre up to a maximum of 9,750 sqm; a two-form entry Primary School; Open space including water bodies, outdoor sports, recreational facilities, canal basin and nature conservation areas; public transport routes, footpaths and cycleways; landscaping; the removal of three runways; all related infrastructure including roads, car and cycle parking, energy plant and associated equipment, water supply, telecommunications, drainage systems and waste water treatment facilities;

 

Part Full application for the demolition of 8,029 sqm of existing buildings and the retention of 36,692 sqm of existing buildings, for their future use for a specified purpose as defined by the Use Classes as specified in the schedule of buildings and their uses; and the temporary use of Building 132 for a construction headquarters.

 

As amended by addendum documents (site wide travel plan, transport assessment), Environmental Statement addendum (updates include flood risk, access traffic and transport, air quality and odour, noise and vibration) and amplified by additional information on retail impact, sustainability assessment, water strategy, responses to third party comments, housing position statement with indicative housing mix, amended Drainage Strategy, Natural England Memo and  Risk assessment for treated sewage disposal.

 

This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (and addendum) at  Dunsfold Park, Stovolds Hill,  Cranleigh”

 

Elizabeth Sims, Head of Planning, introduced the planning application by setting out the context and background against which the application should be considered:

 

This was clearly  a very significant development. Reflecting this, the application had been under consideration for about a year and had been subject to extensive assessment, consultation and negotiation. Officers recognised that there had been a huge amount of interest in the scheme from a wide variety of individuals and bodies. Officers had carefully and properly considered all consultation responses and representations and taken them into account in drawing conclusions.

 

This was a hybrid application for a mixed use new settlement, capturing the fact that the application was mostly in outline form, but partly in detailed form. The outline element of the scheme was essentially for the main part of the new settlement, covering the aerodrome. Importantly, all matters would be reserved. The outline part was seeking to establish the principle  of development as proposed on the site. The key question for Members, in relation to the outline element, was whether they were satisfied that the application had demonstrated that the settlement of up to 1800 units with the additional proposed facilities/uses could be accommodated on this site in a satisfactory way, in planning terms. Members were NOT being asked to agree tonight the details of that part of the scheme which would be submitted subsequently: namely access, appearance, landscape, layout  and scale.

 

The application provided indicative details in respect of proposed access, to assist Members’ assessment of the principle.

 

The detailed part of the application involved demolition of some of the existing buildings on the northern part of the site (on the Business Park) and the  retention of others. This element of the proposal  had to be a detailed application because the intention was to change the use of some of those buildings and changes of use could not be made in outline form.

 

A very important part of the assessment of the principle of development was whether sufficient infrastructure and mitigation had  been offered and secured as part of the  application, to offset the impact of the development. The report included, in full, the extensive package of transport and other infrastructure measures under Highway Works agreements, Section 106 and Conditions that had been offered and secured to support the development. In relation to this, it was important to remember that infrastructure contributions had to be justified in terms of the CIL Regulations: they had to be necessary, related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.

 

Similarly conditions, in accordance with guidance in the NPPF, had to be reasonable, necessary and relevant. The requirement for mitigation measures/ infrastructure on the application, in most cases, had been informed by the expert advice of consultees to ensure that the legal/policy tests had been properly met. Many respondents had suggested that the infrastructure package should be changed or enhanced. It was important to remember that such changes would need to be essentially and technically justified to comply with the law or could be legally challenged; or, in the case of conditions, appealed. It was the view of Officers that, taking into account in particular the expert opinion of the County Highway Authority, the application did satisfactorily mitigate its impact on infrastructure.

 

Mrs Sims reminded the Committee of the decision making framework: the planning system was plan-led, and planning law required that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the  development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The NPPF was a material consideration. This meant that the starting point for the assessment of the application was Waverley’s Local Plan 2002. Due weight should be given to relevant policies in the adopted plan according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is a golden thread running through decision taking.

 

For this application, this meant that where the development plan (Local Plan) was  silent or out of date, sustainable development should be approved unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this framework orwhere specific policies in the NPPF indicated that development should be restricted. The report advised where policies in the adopted plan were out of date.

 

The report addressed the full suite of relevant matters. However, there were three key material considerations sitting under the development plan to consider: the previous planning history (including the previously dismissed application for a new settlement under WA/2008/0788);  the NPPF published in 2012; and, the emerging Local Plan (Pre Submission: Strategic Policies and Sites). The relevant weight to be attached to these considerations was set out in the report.

 

In terms of the principle of development, the site  was located within the Countryside  beyond  the Green Belt outside of any defined settlement or developed area.

 

The key policy of the Development Plan was Policy C2 of the Waverley Local Plan 2002 (Countryside beyond the Green Belt), which stated that the countryside would be protected for its own sake. Paragraph 3.18 stated that the countryside in the Borough was a fundamental part of its character and should be safeguarded. The policy therefore had three strands: protection of the countryside for its own sake; protection of the character of the countryside; and, restriction on isolated development.

 

The NPPF stated that weight could be given to an adopted Plan depending on the degree of compliance with the NPPF. Policy C2 was only partly compliant with the NPPF as the requirement to protect the countryside for its own sake was not a policy principle that appeared in the NPPF. The other two aims of Policy C2, protection of character and restriction of isolated development, were broadly consistent with the NPPF. Policy C2 was therefore partly up to date and could be afforded  significant but not full weight, but should be regarded as not “up to date”.

 

As a result, Paragraph 14 of the NPPF was engaged and the presumption was in favour of granting sustainable development  unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. In relation to Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the application was in partial breach of Policy C2 in the Development Plan. However, the considerations in support of the development, including the development’s benefits, and the support for this form of development in the NPPF, were material considerations that justified a decision otherwise than in accordance with the Development Plan policy. This was  the approach that had been adopted in the officers’ assessment and amplified in the conclusion and the planning balance: where there was conflict between the adopted Plan and the NPPF, the latter should be given greater weight.

 

In relation to planning history, WA/2008/0788 had been dismissed by the Secretary of State for 3 principal reasons (prematurity; highway capacity, and sustainability). The report clearly set out what had changed in planning terms since that decision. Those differences  were material and should be taken into account in the Committee’s assessment. The differences included a significant change in the national policy position with the NPPF - its housing growth imperative and its requirement to meet Objectively Assessed Need; the changing of the transport  assessment bar from “significant”  to “severe” impact (a less stringent test); and its encouragement of the development of brownfield land and garden villages.  

 

Further changes since 2009 were the significant uplift in the Council’s housing target, from 250/year to 519/year, and the greater need for the application site to deliver that need to help provide a 5-year land supply. The position in respect of “prematurity” had also changed since 2009.

 

The differences were explained in the report, and were highly material to the determination of the application. It would not be appropriate or reasonable to conclude that there had been no material changes in circumstances since 2009 and that the previous decision should prevail in isolation. The weight to be attached to the previous appeal decision was limited by the material changes in  planning circumstances.

 

A third important material consideration to be highlighted was the emerging Local Plan. The Council had agreed the  Waverley Local Plan for Submission to Government for Examination on 29 November 2016. At this stage, Members were advised that significant  (although not substantial weight) could be given to the Plan but that they should take into account the degree of unresolved objections to policies on the plan. The key policies that were relevant to this application were  SP2 (Spatial  Strategy), ALH1 (Amount and Location of Housing) and SS7 (New Settlement at Dunsfold Aerodrome). There were unresolved objections to those policies and so the weight that could be attached to them was limited by that. However, it remained an important consideration that the Council had formally supported the Plan at this stage and that, in principle, it recognised, through those policies, that Dunsfold Aerodrome should accommodate housing development up to 2,600 dwellings subject to the provision of appropriate infrastructure. The current application for 1800 homes and other uses proposed a package of measures that sought to do that.Officers, taking into account the expert opinion of the County Highway Authority in particular, considered that adequate mitigation and infrastructure could be provided and delivered to support the development

 

With regard to the issue of whether determination of this application would be premature in advance of the emerging Local Plan being found “sound” at Examination, much concern had been expressed on this point. As set out in the report, the NPPG set out guidance on this which stated that an application for sustainable development was unlikely to be premature unless the harm significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.

 

There were two likely situations quoted in the guidance and the application did not engage the first of these as the development was not so substantial that to grant planning permission would undermine the process by predetermination. This was  a significantly  different situation to 2009 when the development constituted  proportionately a much larger  proportion of the housing target and the Council had not, at that stage, agreed a Local Plan Strategy in principle, which it clearly had now. This approach was fully supported by the Council’s lawyers.

 

Finally, Mrs Sims confirmed that the concerns of the County Highway Authority in relation to the location of development had been taken into account in the assessment of  whether the proposal constituted sustainable development. The Committee was reminded that their assessment of sustainability should reflect the full definition of sustainable development, to include the economic and social benefits and not just the transport/environmental considerations; also, whether any harm can be reasonably mitigated. In addition, the assessment  should be a balanced one, reflecting the requirement of S 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, and so any concern on grounds of location should not be considered in isolationbut considered against the benefits of the development including meeting affordable and market housing requirements and re-using brownfield land in order to comply with  the law and national policy.

 

Peter Cleveland, Development Control Manager, then took the Committee through the Officer’s Report, including the site plans and indicative land use plan, and the Heads of Terms of the proposed legal agreements (Section 278, Section 106). The Outline application indicated that there would be a new access to the site, and this would be supplemented by the existing Compass Gate access (for non-HGV traffic) and the Stovolds Hill access (for buses and emergency vehicles only).

 

The impact of the proposed development on the highways network had been modelled by the applicant’s experts (Vectos), with mitigation measures proposed, including new bus routes and improvements at key junctions to address the marginal increase in traffic that would result from the development. The applicant’s traffic assessment had been reviewed by Waverley’s transport consultants (Mott McDonald) as well as the County Highway Authority (Surrey County Council). It was noted that the eleven local parish councils had jointly commissioned their own traffic assessment of the application (Vision Transport Report). There had been no objection to the application from Highways England. The County Highway Authority had not objected on highway safety grounds, although they continued to object on the principle of the location being unsustainable in transport terms. However, this had to be balanced against the benefits of the application.

 

The Environment Agency had confirmed that the application was acceptable from a flood-risk perspective, but had an outstanding objection in relation to the impact on water quality in the Wey & Arun Canal and Cranleigh Waters of the sewage treatment works discharge. Officers considered that this risk could be addressed through planning condition, and proposed Condition 13 had been amended accordingly.

 

Representations had been made in relation to the undesignated heritage assets at Dunsfold Park, including the airfield features. The Council had received a request to designate Dunsfold Park Aerodrome as a Conservation Area, to protect undesignated heritage assets.  Historic England had also received an application to designate the property known as Primemeads. Planning Officers had taken legal advice and were confident that neither of these prevented the outline planning application being determined with regard to the heritage designations currently in place; if new heritage or Conservation Area designations were agreed, these would have to inform the development of the Reserved Matters application, and its subsequent assessment and determination.

 

Rachel Kellas, Principal Planning Officer, then drew the Committee’s attention to the Update report and in particular: clarification with regard to the weight to be given to Local Plan Policy C2 in relation to the NPPF; revisions to the Highways heads of terms and wording of other planning obligations; updated responses from consultees (Natural England, Historic England, Environment Agency, and Guildford Borough Council); and additional representations from objectors and the applicant.

 

Having considered the additional information reported in the Update, Officers had set out a revised recommendation to grant outline/full planning permission as set out in the Update report.

 

Public speaking

 

In accordance with the Council’s arrangements for public participation at meetings, the following made representations in respect of the application, which were duly considered:

 

Bob Lees, Protect Our Waverley (POW) Campaign - Objector

Nik Pidgeon, Chairman Alford Parish Council & Charles Orange, Chairman Hascombe Parish Council

Mike Derbyshire – Applicant’s team

 

Debate

 

Cllr Simon Inchbald had registered to speak in accordance with Procedure Rule 23, as one of the Ward Councillors covering the application site.

 

Cllr Inchbald said that he accepted the need for housing in Waverley, but remained convinced that this proposal was too big, and in the wrong place. The 2008 application had failed on the ground of transport sustainability, and since then the number of cars on the A281 had increased. The proposed mitigation was dubious and did not overcome the fact that this was an unsustainable location, and he urged the Joint Planning Committee to reject the planning application.

 

Cllr Deanus, as Ward Councillor, made an opening statement expressing his personal views on how he felt lives would be impacted by this application. Determination of this application would be an important chapter in Waverley’s history, and would impact on generations to come. Cllr Deanus particularly highlighted the impact of traffic on the local villages and on the minor roads and felt that there had been a selective interpretation of the County Highway Authority’s representations by officers. Cllr Deanus specifically referred to the comment that the mitigation was a ‘leap of faith’ (p 54 of the report). He did not feel that the views of the County Highway Authority had been given full consideration.

 

Cllr Deanus also highlighted the objection by the Environment Agency which he felt had been dismissed as a matter of detail; and, he maintained that Guildford Borough Council had not formally withdrawn its objection and continued to have serious concerns about the proposals. He also noted that the Cranleigh Civic Society disputed that the benefits of the proposals outweighed the harm, and viewed the proposals as being contrary to Policy C2 on all counts. Cllr Deanus also disputed the assertion that the application site was 86% brownfield, which had not been confirmed by the previous Planning Inspector.

 

Cllr Deanus further also raised concerns in relation to the undesignated heritage assets and comments from Historic England; proposed housing density; conflicts between funding and provision of health facilities on site; and the objection from the AONB.

 

In summing up, Cllr Deanus remained convinced that the application should be refused on the basis of it being unsustainable.

 

The Chairman invited officers to address the points raised by Cllr Deanus before inviting the Committee to continue their consideration of the application. Mrs Sims responded:

·        The accuracy of the proportion of brownfield land referred to in the earlier planning appeal was largely irrelevant as the assessment in the report had been made on the basis of the current application; the majority of the site was clearly brownfield land.

·        Surrey County Council (the County Highway Authority) had no objection on grounds of highway safety or capacity. They had maintained their view that they did not want development in a rural area, but the district council had to weigh up other factors: it was a brownfield site, available, accepted by the Council, and being promoted. The objection on the grounds of sustainability would not be sustainable in isolation.

·        There had been lengthy discussions with the Environment Agency, and their views were valid. The development had to demonstrate compliance with the Water Framework Directive. It would not be sufficient grounds for refusal, and it was within the rights of the planning authority to delegate this matter to be resolved through an appropriate planning condition.

 

Mr Cleveland advised:

·        The Guildford Borough Council consultation response had been updated following their receipt of Counsel opinion, and they now required both a planning condition and a S106 planning obligation. Condition 28 had been amended accordingly, and the S106 heads of terms; Informative no. 9 would also be amended. Subject to these measures being included, Guildford Borough Council had confirmed they had no objection.

·        Notwithstanding the application for Dunsfold Park Aerodrome to be designated as a Conservation Area, advice from the Council’s Legal Team and Heritage Officers was that the planning application should be determined on the basis of the current heritage designations; this approach had been validated by Counsel opinion. The impact of any subsequent Heritage designation would be considered at the Reserved Matters stage;

·        Guildford & Waverley CCG had supported the provision of a GP surgery on site;

·        Whilst the AONB had objected, Natural England had withdrawn their objection and they were the statutory consultee.

 

Mr Green, Surrey County Council, also put in context the quote highlighted by Cllr Deanus regarding the mitigation package: the package overall was an acceptable approach to mitigation; providing a method of delivering a bus network for the life of the development was unique, and therefore this element was a ‘leap of faith’, but that was not a reason not to try it, if Members were minded to grant permission. The mitigation package contained a lot of flexibility to cover future design work, and a contingency fund for unforeseen consequences of the development.

 

Cllrs Cockburn, Foryszewski, Martin, Bolton and Goodridge made comprehensive statements in support of the application, highlighting:

·        The updates received by Members during the year to keep them informed of progress and issues relevant to consideration of the application, so that the agenda report was effectively a summary and there had been ample time to read and digest it;

·        The appeal Inspector’s decision and report reflected a very different time and circumstances; there had been no threat to countryside beyond the Green Belt then but it was a very different matter now; the Inspector had agreed that the site has many benefits;

·        The site visit had highlighted what a vibrant centre of employment the site was, and there was no reason not to grant full permission for that element of the application;

·        As far as the outline application was concerned, this was a large brownfield site with no history of flooding and adjacent to an A-road; there would be harm but not so much as to outweigh the benefits once mitigation was taken in to account;

·        All A-roads in Surrey were congested, but the County Highway Authority was satisfied with the mitigation measures, and the package was generous compared with other recent planning permissions granted; 765 homes had already been approved in Cranleigh with further appeals pending, and there were minimal infrastructure contributions relative to the number of homes;

·        Both Cranleigh and Farnham had lost green fields to development because of delays on Dunsfold Park; the site was a rare commodity - not in Green Belt, not AONB, brownfield, and identified in the Local Plan as a strategic site;

·        There were three strands to the sustainability issue – social, economic, and environmental – and the application satisfied some, although not all of these; neither the County Highway Authority nor Environment Agency objections were showstoppers, given the balance of benefits.

 

Cllrs Stennett, Seaborne, Grey, and Byham made statements against the application, drawing attention to:

·        The outstanding objections from the County Highway Authority and the Environment Agency; there was no need to rush to a decision whilst these issues were unresolved;

·        There was obviously a need for housing in Waverley, but this location was not where people lived and worked;

·        The arguments in the report appeared to be trying to justify inclusion of the site in the Local Plan, before the Local Plan had been examined;

·        There were concerns at the lack of clarity around the proposed site access points, which were part of reserved matters; access was one of the key issues and there was concern that Compass Gate and Tickners Heath gate appeared to be retained;

·        The application was not sustainable on any grounds: there would be a range of pollution (light, air, water), housing was not where it was needed, and there was an excess of the business uses proposed on site;

·        The A281 was the same as it had been in 1966, with no real improvements made in the infrastructure; more detail was needed about the measures proposed for Bramley, both the traffic lights and the bus priority provision, before houses were built.

 

Whilst stating that they were not necessarily opposed to the application, Cllrs Mulliner and Hyman also raised concerns in relation to traffic issues and adequacy of the mitigation; the robustness of the traffic modelling; prematurity of the application in relation to the status of the Local Plan; the challenge to the Housing Needs figure that would be followed up in the Local Plan examination; uncertainty over the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment for 2600 homes, given that the Local Plan had allocated that number to Dunsfold Park.

 

Officers responded to questions and points raised during the course of the discussion:

·        The issue of prematurity had been addressed in the report: Counsel opinion had been sought on this matter and the advice was compared to the 2009 appeal, this application represented a smaller proportion of the housing requirement in the Local Plan, and the Council was not pre-judging its Spatial Strategy as this had already been agreed.

·        The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reflected the 1800 homes sought in this application, which must be decided on its merits; if applications were subsequently received for more homes, these would have to have their own EIA;

·        The mitigation measures in Bramley were subject of further detailed analysis, but traffic signals could facilitate bus priority without the need for a bus lane; the issue of the parking spaces in the High Street would be addressed in the details but there was scope to accommodate hearses and wedding cars; there were other improvements along the A281 route, which would also alleviate the impact of traffic;

·        Highways Officers were confident that the traffic modelling was as accurate as possible; the model was  fit for purpose and built to best practice standards, and modelled what was shown in the plans; the applicant’s modelling had been robustly challenged and validated;

·        There was potential to accommodate additional housing on site (up to 2600 homes) without encroaching on the proposed country park and landscaping;

 

With no further comments from Members of the Committee, the Chairman moved to the recommendations.

 

At 10:35pm the Committee agreed to a proposal by the Chairman that there should be a recorded vote on Revised Recommendation A.

 

Decision

 

Revised Recommendation A:

 

RESOLVED that, having regard to the environmental information contained in the application, the accompanying Environmental Statement (and addendum), together with proposals for mitigation, subject to the applicant entering into an appropriate legal agreement, within 6 months of the date of the committee resolution to grant planning permission, to secure the provision of/contributions towards: 30% on site affordable housing and market housing mix; education infrastructure, provision of canal basin, SuDS and Foul Water management/maintenance, on site health centre/surgery, public open space provision and maintenance (including sports pitches, pavilion, public art and open space), cycleways, public access, off site highways improvements, travel plan, bus service provision, Community Trust, Police Service, leisure, community facilities, subject to conditions 1 - 12, 14 - 17, 19 - 27, 29 – 41 as set out in the main agenda and amended conditions 13 and 28 and additional condition in relation to soils,  and subject to referral to the Secretary of State and no receipt of a direction calling-in the application, permission be GRANTED.

 

A recorded vote was taken, and the voting was as follows:

 

For (10) – Cllr Carole Cockburn, Cllr David Else, Cllr Mary Foryszewski, Cllr Christiaan Hesse, Cllr Peter Isherwood, Cllr Jim Edwards, Cllr Peter Martin, Cllr Andrew Bolton, Cllr Mike Hodge, Cllr John Fraser.

 

Against (8) – Cllr Maurice Byham, Cllr Kevin Deanus, Cllr John Gray, Cllr Jerry Hyman, Cllr Stephen Mulliner, Cllr Stewart Stennett, Cllr Nick Williams, Cllr Richard Seaborne.

 

Recommendation B:

RESOLVED that, in the event that the requirements of recommendation A are not met, that permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

1. Reason

The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure a programme of highway improvement works to mitigate the impact of traffic generated by the development, bus service provision in perpetuity and associated funding and governance, Travel Plan and Travel Plan co-ordinator.  As such, the proposal would fail to effectively limit the impacts of the development on existing infrastructure.  The application therefore fails to meet the transport requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policies M2 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

 

2. Reason

The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure contributions towards education infrastructure, provision of canal basin, SUDS and Foul Water management/maintenance, on site health centre/surgery,  public open space provision and maintenance (including sports pitches, pavilion, public art and open space), cycleways, public access.  The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies D13 and D14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and paragraphs 7 and 17 of the NPPF.

 

3. Reason

The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure the provision of affordable housing within the meaning of the NPPF or an appropriate market housing mix, appropriate to meet Waverley Borough Council’s housing need. The proposal would therefore fail to create a sustainable, inclusive and mixed community, contrary to the requirements of paragraph 50 of the NPPF.