Council Proposed Submission Local Plan: strategy and sites

Overview 1.The timetable 2.The scope of the Plan 3.Evolution of the Plan 4.You said… 5.We responded by.. 6.This resulted in 7.Issues where change has not taken place 8.List of general changes as a result of consultation 9.Main site changes 10.Infrastructure – Education and Transport 11.Response to EAB 12.Conclusion

Timetable EAB 13 April 2016 Special Executive 11 May 2016 Extraordinary Council (Full Council) 24 May 2016 If approved for consultation Commence statutory regulation 19 consultation on 6 June 2016 for 6 week period. Consultation comments not restricted to issues of soundness (positively prepared, justified, deliverable, consistent with national policy).

Scope of the Plan Strategic policies and Sites More detailed policies in relation to; –Retail (defining frontages, protecting A1 uses etc) –Employment (protecting uses in suitable locations, providing guidance on marketing requirements) –Green Belt (defining villages, what constituted original building) Further Development Management policies will follow Consideration will be given to producing a Guildford Town Centre Area Action Plan Supplementary Planning Documents will be provided as required

Evolution of the Plan Undertaken two Regulation 18 consultations: Issues and options (October – November 2013) –Over 20,000 comments from over 5,000 people/organisations Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (July – September 2014) –Over 20,000 comments from over 7,000 people/organisations Two main factors have resulted in alterations to the Plan; –The representations received as part of the consultation –The updating of the evidence base

You said Main areas for objection relate to: The absence or validity of the evidence base The quantum of proposed development is excessive Resultant harm to the Green Belt is unacceptable Constraints have not been applied to limit development A lack of adequate infrastructure will result in unsustainable development.

We responded by New evidence base includes: –The West Surrey Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) –The Employment Land Needs Assessment (ELNA) –The Retail and Leisure Needs Update study –Land Availability Assessment –Guildford Borough Transport Strategy –Strategic Highway Assessment (to be published on 6 June) –Level 1 and 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment –Open Space, Sports and Recreation Assessment and Amenity Assessment Also use of Green Belt sensitivity map and Guildford Town Centre work.

This resulted in Objectively assessed needs have been established. The production of the plan therefore involves taking the OAN as a starting point and testing if these figures can be delivered in light of local constraints – especially the green belt, AONB, flooding, transport. Spatial hierarchy remains as per the previous plan. –Continue to accommodate as much development as possible within the urban areas and village settlements –Use Countryside land but create new Green Belt to prevent coalescence with Ash Green –Continue to use the Green Belt as a constraint. Reference to the Green Belt sensitivity map and other sustainability criteria:

This resulted in (cont) –Around Guildford: only allocate sites on low and medium sensitivity –Former Wisley Airfield: retain site as a new settlement on medium sensitivity –Around villages: only allocate sites on low sensitivity Strong wider sustainability benefits are required to justify any deviation to these overarching principles. The use of the Green Belt sensitivity map and consideration of other sustainability factors has resulted in significant change to allocated sites. The Plan proposes to meet all housing and employment OAN.

Issues where change has not taken place The principle of large scale housing delivery being required to meet need. The SHMA figure has changed as a consequence of alterations to the Employment Land Needs Assessment. Previous figure to fully meet OAN was 816. New figure is 693. It is not possible to meet housing need by just allocating brownfield sites. Over 50% of need is proposed to be met on Green Belt sites. This is the exceptional circumstance. Constraints have been applied but they are not considered to be showstoppers in terms of accommodating development to meet needs. Transport improvements will be required at both the strategic and local level to enable development to progress. Development is predicated and conditional on its delivery The Local Plan is a part of the planning process. Any planning application will need to show constraints have been overcome. Eg former Wisley airfield

List of general changes as a result of consultation Evidence base as detailed above Use of Green Belt sensitivity evidence Flooding constraints more rigorously applied especially in town centre Secondary school sites removed and new sites allocated Densities of sites revisited Many town centre sites considered re deliverability Major greenfield Housing removed from Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Greater protection given to Employment sites New policy on flood risk and the Special Protection Area Greater protection to character of villages Greater protection to open space Extension of new Green Belt in Ash and Tongham Significant additional transport infrastructure now detailed and required

Main site changes The 5 Strategic Sites are retained –Blackwell Farm- site reduced in relation to Green Belt sensitivity on southern boundary and AONB. Impact of new access road reduced down to –Gosden Hill - site area increased on northern boundary. Site to now accommodate a secondary school. Site not to preclude all ways junction if considered necessary by Highways England. –Former Wisley- site area enlarged to the south but capacity not Airfieldincreased. Site to accommodate a secondary school. –SARP- capacity retained at 1,000 homes –North Street- alteration to proposal site. Inclusion of element of residential use.

Main site changes New sites added -Normandy and Flexford -New major site for 1100 dwellings on site previously safeguarded for future development. Provides new secondary school with up to 8 forms of entry. -New site added at Garlick’s Arch -mixed development site for 7000sqm of industrial space, 400 dwellings, facilitates slip roads on the A3. Major sites not taken forward in this Plan -Effingham Lodge Farm -Liddington Hall -Fairlands (was safeguarded) -A number of sites around Send -A site adjacent to West Horsley

Main site changes Major sites not taken forward in this Plan (cont.) A number of town centre sites (for flooding related issues) Secondary school site at Salt Box Road and West Clandon. New Pond Road, Farncombe (AONB) Burnt Common warehouse site Hornhatch Farm, Chilworth Community Football Ground, north Guildford

Infrastructure: Education The level of growth proposed within the plan needs to be supported by appropriate infrastructure. Two key areas of infrastructure provision are Education and Transport. Education Working closely with Surrey CC, sites have been allocated to meet both primary and secondary school provision over the plan period. The three secondary schools have been provided on 3 strategic sites including the new site at Normandy and Flexford.

Guildford Borough Transport Strategy (April 2016) – new version June 2016 endorsed by Executive on 19 April 2016 up-to-date and forward looking strategy contains committed and anticipated schemes for the plan period and aspirations beyond updated version to include the additional transport schemes in the Local Plan to be published on 6 June Strategic highway assessment (forthcoming – June 2016) model and methodology used to support plan making processes in Surrey assessment includes recent amendments to the draft Local Plan model runs completed report is now being written up – to be published to coincide with start of public consultation headline network metrics presented on tonight’s Order Paper Infrastructure: Transport

Robust “worst case” assumptions used Transport supply: does not account for potential modal shift from new & improved sustainable transport choices by rail, bus and active modes Transport demand: no allowance for internalisation of trips within larger sites Total mileage and vehicle hours forecast to increase, with or without a draft Local Plan Even with no future development here, 12% increase in total mileage on borough’s roads between 2009 and 2031 in average morning peak hour Local Plan (scenario 5) compared to future with no development and no new highway schemes (scenario 1). Local Plan results in: 2% increase in ave speed of vehicles in ave morning peak hour 2% decrease in ave speed of vehicles in ave evening peak hour as above, does not account for potential modal shift from new & improved sustainable transport choices by rail, bus and active modes All three of DfT’s Road Investment Strategy schemes are essential Strategic highway assessment: headlines

new rail stations at Guildford West (Park Barn) (NR2) and Guildford East (Merrow) (NR2) Guildford rail station capacity and interchange improvements (NR1), and electrification of the North Downs Line (NR4), facilitating planned uplifts in service frequencies on the Portsmouth Direct Line (NR5) and the North Downs Line (NR6) the Sustainable Movement Corridor (SMC1, SMC2, SMC3, SMC4, SMC5 and SMC6), implemented in sections during the plan period significant bus networks associated with the sites at the former Wisley airfield (BT3) and to the land south of Normandy and north of Flexford (BT4) a comprehensive Guildford borough cycle network (AM2) and off-site cycle networks associated with the sites at the former Wisley airfield (AM3) and to the south of Normandy and north of Flexford (AM4) Sustainable transport schemes: highlights

Response to EAB To give assurance that infrastructure will be delivered in time to support planned growth Infrastructure delivery plan (IDP) and Infrastructure Schedule set out the key infrastructure needed to support the planned development. Road Investment Strategy sets out Highway England’s programme. Requirements also built into policy.

EAB continued Consider reviewing the Green Belt and Countryside Study Evidence base was reviewed in early 2014 following comments from Joint Scrutiny Committee. GBCS methodology amended. The GBCS is considered to be robust.

EAB continued Safeguard green spaces and green approaches in Guildford Town and its surrounding Countryside Amendments to Blackwell Farm, Gosden Hill and Garlick’s Arch site allocations reflect this approach. Policies D1 and D4 both seek to protect the transition from urban to rural. Policy I4 Green and Blue infrastructure designates and protects open space of public value in urban areas and inset villages.

Conclusion We have described the plan we are recommending as officers be submitted for formal consultation. It has changed in light of representations made to previous consultations and the updated evidence base. As stated, it meets all identified need and will bring with it associated supporting infrastructure. We believe it is based on a sound and robust methodology and evidence base that can be defended at examination.