Ashtead Neighbourhood Forum · Ashtead Independent Councillors – newsletter to Ashtead residents...

S t a t u s : F i n a l D a t e : 1 5 A p r i l 2 0 1 6 V e r s i o n : 1 . 1

Ashtead Neighbourhood Forum

Neighbourhood Development Plan Consultation Statement

All maps are produced by permission of Ordinance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Unauthorised reproduction

infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. All rights reserved. ©Mole Valley District Council ©Crown

Copyright & database Right 100021846 2015


Consultation Statement

2 | P a g e D a t e : 1 5 A p r i l 2 0 1 6 V e r s i o n : 1 . 1

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3

2 Background .................................................................................................................................. 3

3 Communication Strategy .............................................................................................................. 3

4 Who Was Consulted .................................................................................................................... 4

5 How they were consulted – the formal consultation ..................................................................... 4

6 What We Communicated ............................................................................................................. 5

7 Responses ................................................................................................................................... 5

8 Analysis - overview: ..................................................................................................................... 5

9 Main Issues and Actions Taken ................................................................................................... 6

10 Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 15




1 Introduction

This Consultation Statement has been prepared in accordance with The Neighbourhood Planning (General)

Regulations 2012 (SI No. 637) Part 5 Paragraph 15 (2)1 this defines a “Consultation Statement” as a document

which:

(a) contains details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed Neighbourhood

Development Plan (NDP);

(b) explains how they were consulted;

(c) summarises the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted;

(d) describes how these issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant, addressed in the

proposed Neighbourhood Development Plan.

2 Background

The Draft Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Plan was drafted more than three years after the

establishment of its working group Ashtead Community Vision (ACV) and establishment in February 2013 of

the Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Forum (the ‘Forum’)

Over that period of time, the Forum communicated on a range of planning issues which culminated in the

public consultation exercise concerning the Draft Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Plan.

The public consultation exercise for the Draft NDP was therefore undertaken against a backdrop of previous

consultation exercises which were to a greater or lesser extent relevant to the Draft NDP. To highlight the

extent of work done in advance of the public consultation exercise for the Draft NDP a timeline is attached in

Appendix i. which provides a history of community engagement from summer 2012 to March 2016 when the

Draft NDP consultation exercise ended.

3 Communication Strategy

The overriding principle behind the communication strategy adopted by the Forum was to consult as widely as

possible within the local community. A key principle was to target every household within Ashtead with door

drops of information on a regular basis. This was achieved by introducing a newsletter (Appendix ii) which was

distributed two or three times per year by volunteers from the Forum and other residents. Also, ACV

contributed on a monthly basis to a community magazine distributed locally called the Ashtead & Leatherhead

Local (The Local), which is delivered to every household in Ashtead (Appendix iii).

The physical communication activity was supplemented by the ACV website - ashteadcommunityvision.org.uk

– which was promoted heavily in all communications. In addition ACV used social media, particularly

Facebook, Twitter and StreetLife. A further useful channel was ‘ActiveInAshtead’ – a community based email

communications news group covering local issues.

The preceding two years in the run-up to the publication of the Draft NDP gave the Forum, and its working

group ACV, a clear idea of what worked well in terms of engaging the local community. When it came to the

formal consultation on the Draft NDP we continued to use these successful communication channels as they

were able to successfully target residents across the whole demographic spectrum.




4 Who Was Consulted

The following groupings were consulted:

• The residents of Ashtead

• Local groups and organisations

• Local Businesses

• Land owners

• Statutory consultees

Details of local groups, landowners and statutory consultees, (the emails to them and their responses) can be

found at Appendices iv., v., and vi. Respectively.

5 How they were consulted – the formal consultation

The formal consultation on the Draft NDP ran from 18th January to 29th February 2016 – a six week period.

ACV publicised the consultation period in the following ways:

Newsletters (Appendix ii) and monthly articles (Appendix iii) in The Local magazine maintained the

NDP narrative up to, during and after the formal consultation period.

An open morning at the Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall was promoted through posters, published

around the village including the local library (Appendix vii.); through the Newsletter and the Ashtead

& Leatherhead Local magazine to every home in the Village; as well as on the ACV website.

The open morning was attended by around 100 residents on February 6th 2016 to enable residents to

discuss aspects of the NDP as well as help those, who were reluctant to use the Internet, to respond

to the questionnaire on paper.

Articles in The Local and other local media, following the issuing of a press release (Appendix viii),

highlighted both the consultation exercise and how residents could provide their input to the Draft

NDP, as well as highlighting the fact that the Internet was being used as a feedback mechanism for

residents’ views.

Publicity for the consultation came from our newsletter and other sources (Appendix ix.):

Ashtead Independent Councillors – newsletter to Ashtead residents mid-January

Mark Everett – email 17th January and Blog 22nd January.

Ashtead & Leatherhead Local - February edition (published end January).

Local Epsom Guardian newspaper – 19th January

Dorking Advertiser and Leatherhead Advertiser – 27th January

Social media (Facebook, Twitter and StreetLife) were also utilised to spread the message. (Appendix

x.)

During the preceding 2½ years ACV developed an emailing list of 568 subscribers who were contacted

as and when matters of substance arose. In addition, it developed contacts with local groups and

organisations. The public consultation exercise led to all our individual contacts being emailed as well

as our list of 72 local organisations - which included charities, schools, voluntary groups, businesses,

churches, political organisations and sports clubs.




6 What We Communicated

Primary focus of the consultation exercise was to promote the Draft NDP which was posted to the ACV website

and available to download. Hard copies were also available at the library and at the open morning.

In order to elicit responses to the Draft NDP, residents on the subscriber list were emailed (Appendix xi) about

an online questionnaire (Appendix xii) which specifically focused on the draft policies to ask whether or not

they were in agreement with them and to provide comments. Also, they were given the opportunity to

comment more generally on the NDP. The same message was conveyed more widely through other

communication channels listed in Section 5 above.

The statutory consultees and landowners were also emailed at the start of the public consultation exercise.

7 Responses

Many very useful and helpful comments were received which indicated where clarification or strengthening of

the wording was necessary in the NDP. In a number of cases factual information was provided including useful

information which enabled the underlying evidence base to be updated.

380 comments were received from individuals responding to the questionnaire: the highest number of

comments were on housing (138), followed by infrastructure (75), economy (69) and environment (45). We

also received 53 comments regarding the NDP as a whole. The summary analysis of responses is at Appendix

xiii and the full list of comments from individuals is at Appendix xiv.

Further comments were received from local groups (2), landowners (1) and statutory consultees (5).

The list of local groups, landowners and statutory consultees, the emails to them and their responses can be

found at Appendices iv, v, and vi.

8 Analysis - overview:

At the end of the consultation period, responses to the questionnaire were divided amongst the working

groups’ subject areas covering housing, economy, infrastructure, and environment and the NDP itself.

Those individuals, who had developed an in-depth knowledge of their subjects were then asked to consider

whether action needed to be taken in terms of changing the Draft NDP policies or not; (the results are shown

in the following section).

In terms of agreement with the policies contained within the Draft NDP responses ranged from 68% to 95% in

agreement. In terms of disagreement, the range was between 4% and 28%. (See the summary report at

Appendix xiii.).




9 Main Issues and Actions Taken

In the main, comments received were in favour and supportive, with a number of helpful comments regarding

clarification of issues. The main issues and actions taken were then put to the Ashtead Neighbourhood Forum

on 12th March 2016 and approved.

Below is a summary of the main issues raised relating to the individual policies and NDP overall and actions

taken.

Policy Number Main Issues Actions taken

NDP Overall:

1. A number of comments

highlighted problems with

parking and transport

services and voiced

objection to any

development of the Green

Belt.

2. Failure to address the

provision of life-long

learning opportunities as

stated in the Vision.

1. Constraints on development in

the Green Belt are covered in the

NDP as are parking and transport

as far as is within its scope. No

change to NDP.

2. The NDP can only address

physical land use and

opportunities for new

development to increase life-

long learning opportunities are,

in reality, likely to be very limited.

However, the NDP has included

community facilities such as

Ashtead Public Library in 4.6 of

the NDP -Valued Community

Facilities. AS-Inf3 also supports

expansion of community

facilities, which could enhance

infrastructure for delivery of life-

long learning. No change to

NDP.

AS-H1: The Land at Murreys Court

In addition to the design criteria set

out in Appendix 11 of the Mole

Valley Local Plan, development of

the site at Murreys Court must

include the provision of a public

footpath that connects the Murreys

and the site with the existing

footpath between Agates Lane and

Skinners Lane, which links the

residential area to The Street. The

footpath and any associated lighting

must be designed in accordance

with the principles of “Designing out

Crime” as set out in MVDC’s

Designing out Crime SPD dated

1. Policy wording unclear that

the footpath would also

connect to existing housing

in The Murreys.

2. Surrey Highways Authority

highlights design and

implementation issues to

provide safe crossing point.

1. NDP wording amended for

clarification.

2. Policy wording amended in

response to Surrey Highways

Authority comments.





December 2011 and satisfy any

design requirements from Surrey

Highways Authority to provide a safe

crossing point across Agates Lane

AS-H2: Balancing the housing mix

1. Housing developments of 5

or more dwellings should conform

to the following proportions of

dwelling types, or as near to them as

possible:

10% - one bedroom; 35% - two

bedrooms; 35% - three bedrooms;

20% - 4 or more bedrooms.

2. Proposals that increase the

proportion of 1, 2 & 3 bedroom

properties and reduce the

proportion of 4 or more bedroom

properties will be encouraged.

1. There was a range of

responses to the housing

mix proposed in AS-H2 but

preferences to increase the

percentage of 4+ beds were

outweighed by the number

of calls for increases to the

percentage levels for

smaller dwellings.

2. Lack of reference to

Affordable Housing.

3. A point of clarification was

raised between a stated aim

of the NDP to maintain the

existing housing mix which

was thought to be

contradicted by housing

policies AS-H2 &

AS-H3.

4. Issues raised about MV

Local Plan being out of

date. Lack of progress with

Local Plan review affects

ability of NDP to meet

housing needs.

5. Land south of Ermyn Way

would contribute to

meeting housing needs

more fully.

1. Surveys of demand within

Ashtead support the provision of

smaller dwellings. Percentages

quoted are based on

recommendations in the East

Surrey Strategic Housing Market

Assessment. No change to NDP.

2. NDP text amended to include

reference to Mole Valley Policy

CS4.

3. NDP amended to remove the

aim of maintaining housing mix

as the aim to provide residential

housing to meet Ashtead’s needs

states the aim more effectively.

4. Timing of MV Local Plan review is

not within the Forum’s control.

NDP is based on adopted Core

Strategy. Already explained in

NDP – no change.

5. The site referred to is in the

Green Belt and a Green Belt

boundary review is a matter for a

new Local Plan and cannot be

undertaken as part of the NDP

process. Already explained in

NDP – no change.

AS-H3: Infill and smaller sites

On housing developments of

between 1 to 4 dwellings:

1. The provision of 1, 2 and 3

bedroom dwellings will be

sought on previously developed

sites and developments may

contain only the number of 4+

bedroom houses as pre-existed

on the site immediately prior to

development.

2. The provision of 1, 2 and 3

bedroom dwellings will be

sought on previously

Concerns about built character

being destroyed by smaller

developments.

Policies AS-H5 & AS-En3 address this

issue, however a paragraph has been

added to the NDP to stress the

importance of balancing character

with residential development.





undeveloped sites and

developments may contain only

one 4+ bedroom dwelling.

AS-H4: Central Area

Developments

Within the Central Area of Ashtead

(see Figure 9 and a larger map in

Appendix 3) developments which

provide new dwellings that are

suitable for those seeking smaller

dwellings, including those wishing to

downsize, are particularly

encouraged.

Mainly favourable comments but

some concerns that the policy

wording excludes younger

people & will result in a

distortion in age profiles in the

area.

NDP amended to those seeking

smaller properties, including those

wishing to downsize.

AS-H5: Maintaining Built

Character

In accordance with Mole Valley

Policies CS13 & CS14, developments

must be visually integrated with their

surroundings and designed to have

regard to the character of the local

area and street scene.

Mainly favourable comments but

some concern that

contemporary design will be

inhibited.

Visual integration does not preclude

contemporary design and text added

to NDP for clarification. Policy

wording also amended to change

“reflect” to “have regard to”.

Paragraph added to NDP to indicate

that guidance on character will be

based on MVDC’s Built Up Areas

Character Appraisal for Ashtead.

AS-H6: Off Street Parking

Off-street parking is to be provided

at residential developments in

accordance with Table H6.

Table H6

1 and 2 bed flats: 1 space per unit

1 and 2 bed houses: 1+ space per

unit

3 and more bed Dwellings:

2+ spaces per unit

On housing developments of

10+ dwellings, there will be a

requirement for allocated

visitor parking spaces on the

site amounting to an additional

1. Policy wording unclear

about the level of provision

of visitor parking.

2. Much higher levels of

parking provision than

proposed were considered

to be essential.


would favour lower level of

parking provision on more

sustainable sites.

1. NDP amended for clarification.

2. The NDP has sought to strike a

balance between anticipated

levels of car ownership and

sustainable development. The

policy will add greater weight to

what is currently only guidance

from SCC, which the evidence

indicates often results in lower

levels of parking provision than

this policy is seeking. No change

to NDP.

3. Sustainable transport options are

limited in most of Ashtead and

the policy seeks to address an

issue identified through

evidence. It would be open to

developers to make a case for

lower provision on specific sites.

No change to NDP.





20% of the figure for the

development calculated from

Table H6.

AS-Ec1: Designate Barnett Wood

Lane shops as a Local Shopping

Area

The area of shops comprising

numbers 196-230 Barnett Wood

Lane is designated as a Local

Shopping Centre, in addition to the

existing shopping centres at The

Street and Craddocks Parade

defined on the Mole Valley Local

Plan Proposals Map. Within the area

defined on the map at Figure 11,

proposals involving changes or use

or increases in shopping floorspace

will be considered against Mole

Valley Local Plan Policy S5 and Core

Strategy Policy CS8.

1. A number of residents were

concerned at the current

lack of parking in this area.

2. There were a few comments

that showed that

clarification would be

helpful on what designation

of the area as an LSC would

mean.

1. Although outside the scope of

the NDP, this issue has been

mentioned in the supporting

text.

2. NDP wording amended

AS-Ec2: Existing Public Houses

The Leg of Mutton and Cauliflower

(48 The Street), The Brewery Inn, (15

The Street) and The Woodman,

Barnett Wood Lane, should be

regarded as valued community

facilities and proposals which would

result in the loss of any of these

existing public houses will be

resisted in accordance with Core

Strategy Policy CS17.

1. The majority were in favour

of this policy, albeit with

some reservations about the

current quality/facilities.

2. A couple of respondents

suggested that The Brewery

be demolished to improve

traffic sight lines and

increase parking.

1. No change to NDP regarding

quality/services.

2. This was not a majority view and

it is outside the scope of the NDP

to secure such a specific

alternative use of the site, where

there is no indication that the

landowner has any such

intention. Therefore no change

to NDP.

AS-Ec3: 53-57 The Street

Any development proposals for

numbers 53-57 The Street should

include a convenience retail store at

ground floor level, with a Net Sales

Area not exceeding 682sqm and a

Gross Floor Area not exceeding

1,349sqm. No more than 10% of the

Net Sales Area should be for the sale


of this policy, but some

clarification of the wording

is required.

2. A few respondents repeated

issues which were raised at

the time of consideration of

the planning application on

this site, including preferred

supermarket operators.

1. NDP wording amended to clarify

reasoning and language.

2. The extant planning permission

has been implemented and

remains live indefinitely.

Therefore it is beyond the scope

of the NDP to revisit the issues

raised. Therefore no change.





of comparison goods. The customer

entrance to the retail store must be

from The Street only and not from

any car parking area to the rear of

the site.

AS-En1: School Playing Fields

Proposals for the expansion of

school premises should allow for the

retention of playing field land for the

use of the school for sports activities.

Proposals should also take into

account the benefit of such playing

field land to the wider Ashtead

community as well as for the school.

1. Strongly supported but

concerns were raised that

constraints on land

availability would prevent

full implementation of the

policy through the provision

of alternative playing fields

within Ashtead. Also that

this would impose an

unreasonable requirement

on the County Education

Authority to acquire such

land.

2. County Education Authority

seeks a more balanced

approach to conflicting

concerns about

safeguarding playing fields

and providing school places.

1. NDP amended to delete demand

for alternative land within

Ashtead to be found..

2. Supporting text added to

acknowledge Education

Authority concerns.

AS-En2: Amenity Space

Areas of amenity grass, grass verges,

trees and hedgerows should be

retained to maintain the open

character of the village.

Development proposals must be

supported by a design that retains

significant trees with public amenity

value wherever possible.


of this policy, but concern

was expressed by a number

that hedges and footpaths

are inadequately

maintained.

2. Greater flexibility and clarity

of meaning is requested

regarding the retention of

trees on development sites.

1. Not a land use issue. No change

to NDP.

2. NDP amended to allow flexibility

but retain significant trees.

AS-En3: Retaining Character

All developments should be visually

integrated with their surroundings

and designed with regard to the

character of the surrounding area

(see also Policy AS-H5).

Larger developments of five or more

houses should include a mix of

Strongly supported but some

concerns were expressed that it

would not allow for

contemporary design. A clearer

indication of the size of ‘larger’

developments is asked for.

1. NDP policy amended for

clarification.

2. Paragraph added to NDP to

indicate that guidance on

character will be based on

MVDC’s Built Up Areas Character

Appraisal for Ashtead.





building styles where that is

appropriate to the character of their

surroundings.

All developments should be

designed to include gardens and/or

green space that maintains or

enhances the character of the local

area.

Environment Section: (not policy-

specific)

1. Environment Agency

requests more recognition

of semi-natural open

spaces, designated nature

conservation sites and

flooding issues along Rye

Brook. Natural England also

highlights importance of

Ashtead Common SSSI.

2. Environment Agency and

Natural England confirm

agreement with draft SEA

screening report (no need

to carry out SEA).

1. Most semi-natural open spaces,

including the SSSI, are in the

Green Belt and the NDP does not

propose any policies affecting

land in the Green Belt.

Additional references included to

designated nature conservation

sites and areas at risk of flooding,

with cross- reference to

background evidence

documents, which cover these

issues.

AS-Inf1: Improving Health

Facilities

Development proposals to expand

primary care provision in Ashtead

including any private medical

services will be supported, provided

the design and scale of the

proposals is compatible with the

character and amenities of the

location. This will include permitting

change of use of residential and/or

commercial premises to support

primary care provision where these

proposed new facilities are in

accessible locations which would

meet local demand and where

appropriate provision can be made

for safe access and car parking.

Strongly supporting comments

but concerns voiced about:

1. Ensuring the provision of

sufficient car parking at new

premises.

2. A few commented that

it should exclude private

medical primary care

provision, and change of

use being allowed only for

commercial and not

residential premises.

1. Add need for suitable car parking

in policy

2. Primary care includes GP practices, dental practices and care homes, i.e. these include private provision and possible need to use residential premises. No change to policy.

3. NDP amended to include provision of adequate car parking on the premises.

4. NDP amended to clarify that primary care facilities include dentists, pharmacies and optometrists.

AS-Inf2: Pedestrian Access Strongly supporting comments 1. Policy already makes reference to

“where it is in keeping with the





The layout of new developments

should incorporate improvements to

the availability of safe pedestrian

routes, where the opportunity arises

and where this can be achieved in a

manner which respects the character

of the area and is compatible with

the safe and effective management

of the highway.

Any proposals for new footpaths

should be designed in accordance

with the guidance in MVDC’s

Designing out Crime SPD adopted

December 2011.

but a number of concerns about:

1. Potential changes to the

character of an area.

2. The need to provide

sufficient parking within

developments to avoid on

street parking.

3. SCC CHA would not

consider adopting individual

small areas of land which

would require dedication

agreements and

maintenance liabilities.

area”.

NDP amended to note that this

would be subject to maintenance

of the local character per AS-H5

& AS-En3

2. Policy AS-H6 deals with parking

provision. No change to NDP

3. Policy wording amended in

response to County Highways

Authority comments.

AS-Inf3: Valued Community

Facilities

Any proposals that result in the loss

of the valued facilities named above,

including any change to their

associated parking areas, will be

resisted unless it can be proved that

there is no longer any need for those

facilities, as set out in Policy CS17 of

the Mole Valley Core Strategy 2009.

Proposals that result in the

expansion or improvement of

existing valued community facilities

to meet local demand will be

supported, provided the design and

scale of the proposals is compatible

with the character and amenities of

the location.

Strongly supporting comments

but a few suggested to also

include:

1. Shell petrol station.

2. Ashtead Village Club.

3. City of London Freemen’s

School in Park Lane left out

of 4.4.6.

No change to policy proposed since:

1. Shell station is a business not a

community asset.

2. The Village Club is for members’

use only and is not available to

the wider community, even for

private hire.

3. Inserted City of London

Freemen’s School at 4.4.6.

AS-Inf4: Infrastructure Priorities

The following projects are identified

as local priorities for infrastructure

improvements, which should be

considered by MVDC, in consultation

with the Ashtead community, for

funding through the neighbourhood

Strong support for this policy.

Main comments were:

1. A few people did not want

money wasted on expensive

and poorly used cycle route

schemes such as the joint

cycle/pedestrian route

along the A24 south

1. This was already noted in the

NDP. No change required to

policy. Provide feedback to SCC

on this concern.

NDP amended to clarify the CIL

decision-making process and

that the CIL list is a living





allocation of the Community

Infrastructure Levy:

• Provide public toilet facilities

adjacent to the Queen Elizabeth II

Playing Field, either at the Old

Pavilion off Greville Park Road or

near the Youth Centre.

• Install Real Time Passenger

Information at the following bus

stops in the village: on the north side

of The Street and on both sides of

Barnett Wood Lane, by Ashtead

Pond.

• Improved parking outside the

shops on Barnett Wood Lane.

• Improvements to pedestrian access

on narrow roads with no paved

footpaths, where consultation with

local residents suggests that this

would be supported, where there

would not be an adverse impact on

the character of the area and where

Surrey Highways Authority’s Road

Safety Audits demonstrated that

both vehicular and pedestrian safety

could be ensured.

• Projects to promote and improve

safe cycling routes, taking a holistic

view of cycle links both within

Ashtead and to Epsom and

Leatherhead town centres and

schools.

• Provide a pedestrian crossing

across the A24 at or near the

junctions of Farm Lane and Bramley

Way, subject to permission and

availability of additional funding

from Surrey Highways Authority.

• Improve signage to public car

parks such as at Grove Road and

completed in 2015.

2. Preferred location for a

pedestrian crossing of the

A24 near Bramley Way as

well as a reduction of speed

limit to 30mph. Other

crossing locations also

suggested


raise specific design and

management issues with

respect to some of the

items listed.

document.

2. No change to policy required.

Propose SCC undertake a review

of safety of pedestrian crossings

including speed limit on whole

length of A24 through Ashtead

between Ermyn Way and

Craddocks Avenue).

3. NDP amended to reflect

comments.





adjacent to Ashtead Peace Memorial

Hall, to encourage use of car parks

and minimise on-street parking and

subject to permission and availability

of additional funding from Surrey

Highways Authority.




10 Appendices

Appendix PDF

Number

Title

i. 1 ACV Timeline.pdf : A History of Community Engagement – Summer 2012 to March 2016

ii. 2 The Newsletter.pdf: Local groups consulted

iii. 3 The Ashtead and Leatherhead Local.pdf : Example

iv. 4.1 List of Ashtead organisations consulted

4.2 Letter sent to Ashtead organisations

4.3 Response - Ashtead Bridge College

v. 5.1 List of landowners consulted

5.2 Letter to landowners

5.3 Response from Bidwells

vi. 6.1 List of statutory consultees

6.2 Letter to statutory consultees consulted

6.3 Response – Network Rail

6.3 Response – Surrey County Council

6.3 Response – Surrey Highways Authority

6.4 List of statutory consultees requiring a SEA

6.5 Letter to statutory consultees requiring a SEA

6.6 Response Environment Agency

6.6 Response Natural England

vii. 7.0 Poster

viii. 8.0 Press Release

ix. 9.0 Publicity outcomes (excluding The Local): 1. Ashtead Independent Councillors – newsletter to Ashtead residents mid-January 2. Michael Everett (local estate agent) – email 17th January 3. Michael Everett (local estate agent) - Blog 22nd January 4. Local Guardian newspaper – 19th January 5. Dorking and Leatherhead Advertiser – 27th January 6. Ashtead Residents’ Association article for Ashtead Village News (Spring edition)

x. 10.0 Social Media

xi. 11.0 Letter to individuals on the ACV subscriber list

xii. 12.0 The questionnaire

xiii. 13.0 Summary analysis of questionnaire

xiv. 14.0 Individuals’ comments

1 | P a g e

Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Plan

A History of Community Engagement – Timeline: Summer 2012 to March 2016

http://ashteadcommunityvision.org.uk/news-and-events/press-publicity/

2012

Summer 2012:

Ashtead Community Vision (ACV) was founded with the aim of recruiting a Neighbourhood Development Forum (Forum) and contact made with Mole Valley District

Council (MVDC) Planning Department. Recruitment campaign started which included letters and articles in local newspapers and magazines, making contact with major

businesses and addressing local organisations. Website established and some funding raised.

4 October 2012

Leatherhead Advertiser published letter from Andy Ellis who has set up ACV and encourages the Ashtead community to set up a Forum [1]

8 October 2012

AE attended Ashtead Residents’ Association (ARA) Autumn Meeting held at Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall (APMH) so as to publicise Neighbourhood Planning and the role

of ACV/Forum. Poster [2] and leaflet produced.

1 November 2012

Leatherhead Advertiser published article focusing on Andy Elis and ACV – encouraging local community to set up a Forum [3]

3 November 2012

St Michael’s Church newsletter covered the forthcoming pubic meeting to form a Forum. [4]

Email to St Peter’s Catholic Primary School parents publicising the meeting [5]

Leaflet prepared for public meeting [6]

8 November 2012:

AE attended Transition Ashtead’s monthly meeting at APMH to promote and recruit for the Forum

27 November 2012

Letter to ExxonMobil seeking support for the work of the Forum [7]

December ACV members attended 3 school fairs and Ashtead Christmas Fair in the Street so as to publicise the Forum

2013

January 2013

Preparation for public meeting: posters, a Newsletter was delivered to every address in Ashtead and media relations activity. [8] [9] [10] [11]

Appendix 1

http://ashteadcommunityvision.org.uk/news-and-events/press-publicity/

2 | P a g e

Coverage in The Ashtead & Leatherhead Local (The Local) magazine – What will Ashtead Look Like in 20 years? And also in the Challenger newsletter {Art2}

10 January 2013:

Coverage in Leatherhead Advertiser: carried an article about the reason for a public meeting in Ashtead to publicise the issues surrounding local planning.

12 January 2013

Notice in St Michael’s Parish newsletter of a Drop-In Meeting at APMH organised by the Forum, to discuss the Localism Act.

15 January 2013

Public meeting at APMH. This was publicised through posters, a Newsletter which was delivered to every address in Ashtead, and newspaper articles.

January 2013

Coverage in Surrey Advertiser concerning the setting up of the Forum {Art4}

24 January 2013

Coverage in Leatherhead Advertiser concerning the meeting at APMH. The meeting was held to inform residents about the work to be done. {Art3}

9 February 2013:

ASHTEAD NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT FORUM ESTABLISHED - 48 members volunteered from across the community:

Responsible for agreeing the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) for consultation with the community and submission to the MVDC for independent

examination

Oversees and gives direction to a “working group” in order to create an NDP. The working group formed around the original ‘core’ ACV volunteers.

Meets four times per year – first meeting held February 2013

Constitution adopted

NOTES on activities in 2013

As a first step, the Forum/ACV conducted a Housing and Green Belt survey of Ashtead residents to learn their views on housing, their reasons for choosing to live

in Ashtead and their opinions on how and whether the areas of Ashtead’s Green Belt met the criteria of Merging, Encroachment and Setting & Character. ACV’s

initial work was focused on housing but later in the year MVDC was keen to engage the Forum in conducting the full Green Belt Boundary Review (GBBR) as its

role was seen to be central to the review of the Green Belt. The consultation exercise and the effort that went into it reflected this position

14 February 2013

Ashtead independent magazine: coverage of the new Forum group.

14 February 2013

Leatherhead Advertiser posted an article about the first meeting of the Forum {Art5}

Also published articles on Effingham NDP and comments from Andy Ellis on the Housing and Green Belt survey. {Art6}

March 2013

Online Housing and Green Belt survey went live - other survey activity was agreed and implemented over the following four months.

Easter 2013 (31 March)

St. George’s Church magazine: published outline of the objectives of the Forum and the work of its working group ACV.

Easter 2013 (31 March)

3 | P a g e

ARA magazine: article concerning the setting up of the Forum.

April 2013

The Forum applied to MVDC to be “designated”. Documents submitted to MVDC. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. These included details of the consultation exercise so far

undertaken by ACV [17] [18] [18b]. The Forum’s constitution [19] and the physical boundaries of Ashtead [20].

27 April 2013:

THE FORUM HOLDS DROP IN MEETING AT APMH.

May-June 2013

MVDC undertook a public consultation on the Forum and its proposed members and in July the council formally designated the Forum

1 May 2013

Leatherhead Advertiser carried an article calling for local residents to get involved through the survey, newsletters and ACV itself.

8 May to 19 June 2013:

Consultation on setting up of the Forum. [23rd of May: Leatherhead Advertiser: news that ACV applies for Forum designation.]

29 May 2013

Leatherhead Advertiser carried an article about the ACV submission to MVDC for formal recognition as the organisation collating views on planning policy.

Summer 2013

SUMMER NEWSLETTER: 609 people responded to the Housing and Green Belt survey. (The story has a breakdown of the respondents in a local article).

Newsletter distributed to all homes in Ashtead.

April/May 2013

Housing & Green Belt survey initial analysis. ACV took the view that while the results were impressive it was noted that the age profile was skewed towards older residents

(despite being an on-line survey). ACV therefore decided to undertake additional work by targeting younger residents at Ashtead Village Day on 8th June with questions on

dwelling type preferences & views on the Green Belt.

8 June 2013;

ASHTEAD VILLAGE DAY: CONSULTATION SURVEY Housing & GBBR – face-to-face / paper based survey targeted at the 18-34 age group on housing and the Green Belt

held at Village Day.

Summer Newsletter also distributed at Village Day.

June 2013

Housing survey of Ashtead’s Estate Agents to obtain information on the dwelling types being sought by clients and their reason/s for living in/moving to Ashtead.

13 June 2013

Drop-in day at the APMH. Laptops provided to encourage completion of the Housing and Green Belt survey.

July 30 check that this is in The Local article about Green Belt.

July 2013

Results of the Housing and Green Belt survey collated and a presentation of the results produced for consideration by the Forum

31 July 2013

Forum formally designated by MVDC

July/August

SURVEY of Ashtead Hospital workers to determine their housing preferences

4 | P a g e

10 August 2013

FORUM MEETING: (JM chaired it). The Forum was not quorate given the summer holidays, however, initial discussions ensued about the Housing and Green Belt survey

results. No formal decisions made.

22 August

Leatherhead Advertiser. A report called for young people to join the Forum as their low representation was seen as an issue by ACV.

August 2013:

The Local article. Young families priced out of Ashtead.

September 2013

The Local article: covered the designation of the Forum by MVDC. Described the process for assessing the Green Belt around Ashtead. It also announced that the Forum

had received a £5000 grant from the Government.

Autumn 2013

ARA publication Ashtead Village News: Newsletter reported that 700 people responded to the Housing and Green Belt survey. It also reported that ACV undertook a survey

of younger residents at Ashtead Village Day.

October 2013:

The Local: talked about the population pressures driving the need for ever more housing.

NOTES on activities: November 2013

MVDC had decided to write its HTSP and asked the Forum to contribute given that site assessments could potentially be included in the Ashtead NDP. The Forum

agreed to undertake site assessment work of those sites that had been identified by MVDC and any further ones that came forward for assessment as part of the

HTSP work. ACV started undertaking the Site Assessment work at the end of 2013. AVC met MVDC on 29th November to discuss the Housing Needs Report. Also,

Government clarified the position of Neighbourhood Development Forums in the context of changes to Green Belt boundaries. Hitherto, DCLG had advised MVDC

that a GBBR could be incorporated in an NDP. However, the NPPF stated that Green Belt boundaries could only be changed as part of a Local Plan. Following

extensive correspondence between MVDC and DCLG it was resolved that responsibility for the GBBR would revert to MVDC, as part of the HTSP. However, the

Forum would carry out the analysis and public consultation on a GBBR for the Ashtead Neighbourhood Area and submit the results to MVDC for consideration.

. Work on the Site Assessments followed the GBBR and was completed by April 2014 for inclusion in MVDC’s Housing and Traveller Sites Plan (HTSP

November 2013

FORUM MEETING:

GBBR Report discussed, amended and then approved at the Forum meeting

GBBR report published online and an online feedback questionnaire commenced

Forum decided to oppose Barnett Wood allotments being moved from Leatherhead to Ashtead in order to accommodate development in Leatherhead.

November 2013:

The Local: Focus on the consultation exercise - described the Bronze Age features of Ashtead identified during the assessment of the Green Belt.

28 November 2013

Leatherhead Advertiser: announced Green Belt planning delay. It said that following Government clarification MVDC remained the primary authority for deciding changes to

the Green Belt rather than the Neighbourhood Development Forums.

5 | P a g e

5 December 2013

The Epsom Guardian reported that the change by Government of its policy towards allowing NDPs to change Green Belts was being reversed in favour of that power being

retained by the local district planning authority ie MVDC.

December 2013

WINTER NEWSLETTER: Delivered to all homes in Ashtead.

Reported on the work that the Forum had undertaken for the GBBR.

It also reported about the U-turn by government concerning who has the primary say over Green Belt policy at local level.

The Newsletter also discussed the issue of the redevelopment of allotments that are situated within the Green Belt up against the M25 motorway.

The Newsletter reported that ACV and the Forum were against the development of housing in that area because it contravened the sanctity of the Green Belt.

December 2013

The Local reported the November Forum meeting and focused on opposition to allotments being relocated from Leatherhead to Ashtead in order to facilitate development

in Leatherhead.

2014

January 2014

Poster published concerning the 18th January open morning at the APMH where the focus was on the GBBR. (By this time the Forum was aware that it was conducting the

boundary review for MVDC to take forward rather than taking a decision-making role.)

14 January 2014:

The Local reported that ACV was assessing up to 10 sites that had been put forward by developers to MVDC, to assess their development potential and possible inclusion in

MVDC’s HTSP. This was the first public mention of ACV’s involvement in the HTSP.

18 January 2014

OPEN MORNING FOR RESIDENTS AT APMH – Public Consultation on the GBBR.

440 respondents to the questionnaire provided 1500 comments on the GBBR.

The Forum concluded that boundary changes could be considered to 2 of the 10 Areas of Green Belt in Ashtead

Opportunity for community to provide further feedback

23 January 2014:

Epsom Guardian reported that a campaign to oppose redevelopment on the Green Belt had been launched. It reported that the Ashtead Forum had suggested changes to

the Green Belt to enable housing development to take place.

February 2014

FORUM MEETING: discussed the GBBR, the results of the Public Consultation and proposed final changes to the GBBR as a result of comments made.

13 February 2014

GBBR submitted to MVDC along with all comments received from the public during the consultation.

24 February to 6 April 2014

The Forum ran a consultation on the assessment of ten sites in Ashtead. Each of the sites had been put forward by their respective owners to MVDC for consideration as

potential sites for housing development.

February 2014

The Local: the article asked where will Ashtead’s new housing go? It discussed the targets that had been established by MVDC in its Local Plan.

6 | P a g e

27 February 2014

Leatherhead Advertiser: reported that ACV had identified 10 sites for potential development from those that have been put forward by local developers.

March 2014

The Local article: reported that there had been 1,500 replies to the GBBR consultation. It said that this had been achieved across two surveys and two supplementary surveys

undertaken by ACV. The report mentioned the support the Forum had received from ARA and SAVE. The report also mentioned that the Forum’s views on the GBBR had

gone to MVDC.

The article also raises the issue of the HTSP and the Forum’s role in it.

Spring 2014:

SPRING NEWSLETTER: The Newsletter reported on the land assessment work being undertaken by ACV and the Forum. It also mentioned that the Forum’s views on the

GBBR had gone to MVDC.

Spring 2014:

ARA NEWSLETTER: also mentioned the work of the Forum.

13th March:

Epsom Guardian news report: newspaper reported about the land assessments work that had been undertaken in Ashtead by ACV on behalf of the Forum.

29 March 2014:

OPEN MORNING FOR RESIDENTS AT APMH

Focus on the 10 sites being assessed by ACV. Feedback sought through online and paper questionnaire.

April 2014:

The Local reported about the consultation exercise for the site assessments that was being undertaken by ACV.

May 2014:

The Local article: suggested that thousand visitors had been to the ACV website: it reports that there been 150 submissions and 500 comments concerning the site

assessments and regarding particular individual sites. It noted the opposition to developing Green Belt land particularly in the Farm Lane area.

17 May 2014

Deadline for submitting work on the site assessments.

19 May 2014

FORUM MEETING

The Forum considered the consultation exercise on the assessment of ten sites in Ashtead. The Forum reviewed and agreed the assessments for submission, together with

all comments received, to MVDC. A number of changes requested by the Forum were incorporated.

30 May 2014

Site assessment documentation sent by the Forum to MVDC.

NOTES on activities: June 2014

Having submitted reports on both the GBBR and Site Assessments as part of MVDC’s HTSP the Forum and ACV started to turn its attention to the development of

its NDP almost two years after Andy Ellis and other colleagues from ACV proposed that Ashtead should engage in the NDP process. The work began in the

knowledge that MVDC had not yet assessed the related work that it had encouraged the Forum to undertake.

7 | P a g e

June 2014:

The Local article: time to start the NDP. It was at this point that the ACV began to focus on the development of the NDP being no longer covered by work on the GBBR or

on site assessments for the HTSP.

Summer NEWSLETTER:

The work begins. The Newsletter aimed to kickstart the NDP process the number of articles about the nature of NDPs and the role of the local community in developing

them.

July 2014:

The Local article: The Local reported delays at MVDC concerning the HTSP which had run into difficulties. The article also mentioned that ACV had developed a vision for

Ashtead.

August 2014:

FORUM MEETING: Adopted the ‘vision’

August: 2014:

The Local reported about work that ACV had done on the local environment and in particular on local historic and ancient sites of interest.

September 2014

The Local: the article focused heavily on the Vision for Ashtead.

October 2014

The Local: the article focused on Ashtead’s own domesday book and was an attempt to highlight the work that was being undertaken by the subgroups of ACV who were

gathering data on the village.

November 2014

The Local: planning and the art of the possible highlighted what a neighbourhood development plan could cover and what it could not cover in planning terms.

NOTES on activities: December 2014

On 9 December 2014, MVDC terminated preparation of the HTSP, along with the GBBR which formed part of that Plan. MVDC did not publish its conclusions on

the work carried out by the Forum or on the development potential of the sites covered by the Site Assessments but suggested that the work would make a

contribution to a new Local Plan being developed by MVDC. The decision to develop a new Local Plan was in response to failure of a number of other Local Plans

based on Regional Spatial Strategy figures and statements from Government indicating that Green Belt constraints would continue to outweigh other

considerations relating to housing land supply.

December 2014

The Local: keep calm and carry on – focused on the MVDC decision to scrap the HTSP.

2015

January -- Winter NEWSLETTER:

8 | P a g e

The Newsletter highlighted that the NDP would be drafted during 2015. Newsletter also covered the outcome of the social media activity that ACV had undertaken up until

that point. In particular it covered the success or otherwise of social media versus more traditional online media as well as traditional print media. The Newsletter also

covered the fact that the HTSP had been scrapped by MVDC. And that MVDC would go ahead with a new Local Plan.

January – June 2015

NDP - CONSULTATION: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WITH ORGANISATIONS LAUNCHED

Ashtead-based organizations, interest and activity groups, schools, churches, political groups, charities, clubs and businesses were contacted and invited to participate in

providing thoughts and ideas in respect of the preparation of Ashtead’s NDP.

In broad terms, the following were contacted:

11 community groups

8 charities

4 churches

23 interest/activity groups

8 sports clubs/groups

8 schools

4 nurseries/playgroups

7 children’s groups/organizations

3 local environment/open spaces organizations

9 businesses/representative groups

6 political groups/organizations

Three questions were asked:

o What do you most appreciate about Ashtead?

o What one thing would you like to see improved within Ashtead?

o What one facility or development would you like to see in Ashtead in the future?

January 2015

The Local: this article focused on a new consultation exercise that was being undertaken by ACV. The exercise aimed to get directly in touch by telephone and/or email with

all local sporting and other social groups within Ashtead. The ideals forced them how they saw the future of Ashtead and whether they would like to make some sort

contribution to the development of the NDP.

January 2015

The Local: the article also focused on the consultation exercise undertake by two ACV members who are calling local groups and societies and sports providers asking them

about the future of Ashtead and their contribution towards the NDP.

8 January 2015

Leatherhead Advertiser article??

9 | P a g e

Story covered the consultation exercise being undertaken with local groups. The article promoted feedback mechanism that ACV had put in place for those seeking to help

their support .

February 2015

The Local: the article highlighted the fact that traditional online communication i.e. websites and email is actually outperforming social media intensive feedback from

Ashtead residents.

March 2015

The Local: The Local article focused on the publication of the housing sub-group’s plans and what they saw as the issues for the future development in Ashtead. It also

highlighted the so-called crises facing Ashtead residents.

April 2015

The Local: a further report on the housing subcommittee report headlined no room for complacency. The article also covered spike in visits to the ACV website.

May 2015

The Local: no room for you in Ashtead? The article questioned and sought feedback from local groups as to whether they could find enough meeting space for their

activities within the existing facilities within Ashtead. The article also covered the findings of ACV’s consultation exercise with local groups.

June 2015

The Local changed business premises sports facilities to be enlarged. This article focused on the business sub-committee report.

July 2015

The Local: ‘order order keep the housing mix’. This was a report on the desire of the Forum to ensure that the mix of housing within Ashtead was retained into the future.

Report also on the meeting of the most recent Forum.

10 | P a g e

Spring NEWSLETTER 2015

Spring Newsletter focused on a number of issues including shortage of sports facilities in Ashtead highlighting the fact that the local football club had to travel elsewhere to

train because there was not enough space for them within Ashtead. The Newsletter also reported on the economy report from it subcommittee her and discussed care

facilities. The Newsletter also covered the publication of the Transport sub-group.

August

The Local: Focus on the Government’s statements on the issue of Brownfield sites and ‘previously developed land’. Article discussed the lack of development opportunities

in Ashtead and what was likely to be included in the NDP.

September

The Local: Article focused on MVDC’s inability to get the housing mix right given that there had been an inexorable rise in the percentage of large houses being built at the

expense of smaller homes. The article also highlighted the fact that home extensions were reducing the availability of smaller homes for young starter families and the

elderly. The article highlighted the disagreements among the forum regarding what was described as a proscriptive approach trying to control the size of homes being built

in future. The article highlighted a lively debate and laid out to opposing views-one which described a more planned approach to the nature of future housing stock and

one which was described as being more laissez-faire in its approach.

October

The Local: the article highlighted a daily Telegraph article about ’assets community value’. In particular, the article was about the Anglers Rest public house in Bamford in the

Peak District where the local community had bought their local pub. The article then went on to question whether their were assets community value in Ashtead and that

ACV was looking at the issue with a view to its relevance for the NDP.

November

The Local: the community infrastructure levy (CIL) was the focus of the November local article. The article highlighted the role of the CIL and its introduction into the

discussions regarding the NDP. The article, once again, encouraged residents to engage in the NDP process essentially suggesting that the community could get financial

assistance should work on the CIL be undertaken and included into the NDP process.

December

The Local: The December edition of the Local highlighted the fact that the Ashtead neighbourhood development forum have now received the first draft of the NDP as

appropriate to the public engagement exercise which subsequently began in January 2016. The article was an opportunity to remind residents about the NDP process and it

highlighted the ‘calendar of events’ from that point through to a Referendum which it predicted, could be held in May 2017.

WINTER NEWSLETTER 2016

the Winter newsletter aimed to highlight the policies contained within the draft NDP stop it was an opportunity, not only to highlight the start of the public consultation

exercise, but also to mention that on 6 February residents were invited to attend an open morning at the Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall where they could ask questions

about Forum’s proposals. The second front page article in the newsletter focused on the one issue that appeared to exercise residents more than any other and that was the

proposals to seek balanced mix of new housing. So the second article went into some detail about this draft policy given it was the one issue that seem to stimulate most

debate amongst the forum members as well as residents.

Other articles covered the economic side of the NDP as well as environmental matters, primary care, foot paths and community facilities. The overriding objective, therefore,

was to ensure that the newsletter covered all of the policies in the draft NDP.

11 | P a g e

With the publication of the draft NDP, the newsletter and the local article 4 February, the communications issued by ACV covered those residents who were extremely

interested in the NDP initiative, those who had some interest - and were happy to read a 1,500 word newsletter put through their door - and those who had a passing

interest but who could read The Local article as a ‘snapshot’ of what the Ashtead neighbourhood development forum was planning.

January

The Local: the January article is particularly important because it attempted to highlight all the policies contained in the draft NDP. It was the first opportunity, to present to

the local community the actual detail contained within the draft NDP albeit in 500 words. In effect then, the local article was a shorter version of the NDP story than the

newsletter which went into more detail.

Posters: number of posters were put up around the village highlighting the open morning at the APMH on 6 February. This included public areas such as local library.

Press Release: Press articles appeared in local papers concerning the public consultation exercise {INSERT DETAILS HERE]

Public consultation starts 18TH January.

February:

The Local: the February article was headlined “Demolishing Suburbia”. The eye-catching headline and the tone of the article was aimed at stimulating interest in the public

consultation exercise which had just been launched. The article talked about “knocking down” properties, developers, loft conversions, extensions, and the fact that a

person’s property was probably one of the greatest assets. These mild ‘shock tactics’ were devised, simply to encourage local residents to engage in the consultation

exercise (which ran from 18 January through to the end of February). Importantly, it also highlighted the fact that on 6th February the Ashtead Neighbourhood Development

Forum was to hold an open morning at the Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall so that those who did not wish to use the Internet to provide feedback on the report could come

along and do so on paper. The article once again reiterated where on the Internet residents could respond to the draft NDP and, highlighted the fact that there would be 17

questions they were being asked to answer.

March

The Local: March article, which was published in February, gives an early feedback about the public consultation exercise. It said that around 60 people had filled in the

online questionnaire and that around hundred had visited the APMH on 6 February. The article discussed how the Ashtead Neighbourhood development forum could

measure success. It highlighted the difference between the green belt consultation exercise when around 600 Ashtead Street residents voiced their opposition to any

suggestion of development on the green belt and the early response to the NDP which was considerably lower. While the article gave no clues to why response rates were

lower for the end draft NDP it simply said that the two exercises were quite different. The article also pointed out that if any resident had missed the opportunity to

comment then they should remember that a further consultation exercise would be launched in the relatively near future by mole Valley district Council.

NOTES ON ACTIVITIES:

12 | P a g e

All residents had access to the full NDP via the Internet, whose address every publication over the preceding two years had highlighted. Furthermore, every

resident in the village would have received the newsletters that were distributed by volunteers from the Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Forum directly to

their homes. And, as this Timeline indicates, every home in the Ashtead area also received each month, a copy of The Local magazine which sought to maintain a

level of interest in the NDP process culminating in articles which focused on the draft NDP itself and the consultation exercise which would allow residents to

have their say on what the Ashtead neighbourhood development

forum was proposing.

ENDS

The Ashtead Neighbourhood Forum – Newsletter

The Newsletter was delivered to every home in Ashtead by volunteers from the

Forum, ACV and residents. The one featured below was the Winter 2015/16

document which heralded the public consultation exercise in January/February 2016.

The newsletter was produced eight times from February 2013 to the run up to the

consultation period. Also, the newsletter promoted the website and ACV’s social

media links in order to broaden the opportunities for individuals to tap into ACV’s

communication channels.

Copies of every newsletter can be found on the ACV website at:

http://ashteadcommunityvision.org.uk/useful-documents-information/newsletters/

http://ashteadcommunityvision.org.uk/useful-documents-information/newsletters/

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 2

‘The Ashtead & Leatherhead Local’ magazine.

www.ashtead-leatherhead.com

‘The Ashtead & Leatherhead Local’ (The Local) magazine proved to be one of the

main channels of communication for ACV’s activities relating to the NDP. The local

has a distribution footprint of 10,000 copies which are sent directly to home in

Ashtead, leatherhead, Fetcham and Langley Vale.

It says on its website that its aims are three fold:

“Firstly, to provide the local community with news and information on what’s

going on in the area; secondly, to ensure that our local charities and

organisations get their message across to readers, ensuring excellent, free of

charge exposure to help them raise much-needed funds (this is why around 30-

40% of the magazine is given to them); and, thirdly, to provide local businesses

with value for money advertising to ensure that the community is aware of the

services that they provide and to ‘keep trade local’, ensuring that our community

continues to thrive.”

The Local proved to be a very powerful ally to the ACV and the Forum given its editor

allowed us to write an article of 500 words each and every month from June 2013

onwards. This meant around 34 articles – some 17,000 words – were written about

issues related to the NDP process and delivered to residents each and every month.

Back copies of the articles can be found here:

http://www.ashtead-leatherhead.com/back-issues.html

The monthly article series continues into the run up and through the consultation

period in January/February 2016. The two most relevant articles are appended below

on the two following pages:

http://www.ashtead-leatherhead.com/

http://www.ashtead-leatherhead.com/back-issues.html

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 3

09/03/2016

Ashtead Organisations contacted as part of the NDP consultation process

Organization Contact email address

Ashtead Day Centre Over 60s Lunch Club Di Stirling ]

Ashtead Choral Society Di Stirling ]

Ashtead Flower Arranging Group Di Stirling ]

Ashtead Friendship Centre Don Butt

Ashtead Good Neighbours Marian Guess

Ashtead Women's Institute Sandra Brown

Probus Club of Ashtead Alan Goulder

Ashtead Residents' Association Glynis Peterkin

Transition Ashtead Chris Ellis

AFASIC North Surrey

Ashtead Churches Community Trust Ian Grimstone

Ashtead Learning Difficulties Action Group

Mid Surrey Dementia Care Trust Glynis Peterkin

Rianna's Fund

Rotary Club of Ashtead Keith Allardyce

Royal British Legion Ashtead Branch John Reynolds

Ashtead Baptist Church Ian GrimstoneSt George's & St Giles Church (including

BESOM) David Renew

St Michael's Church Mike King

Ashtead Allotments Association Steve Hyde

Ashtead Art Group Jan Cheeseman

Ashtead Art Lovers Group Mel Fraser

Ashtead Bridge College John Cumming

Ashtead Card Making and Craft Club Claire Lomas

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 4.1

09/03/2016

Ashtead Decorative & Fine Art Society Nigel Arch

Ashtead Horticultural Society Jennie Pilfold

Ashtead Jazz Club Tom Early

Ashtead Players / Young Players Susan Hawksfield

Ashtead U3A Ray Cane

Leatherhead and District Local History Society David Hartley

Mole Valley Speakers Michael McDonnell

SoundBytes & SongWorks Hazel Hannam .

Woodfield Entertainers Neil Edwards

Ashtead Badminton Club Jess Gowland

Ashtead Bowling Club Anne Wallace

Ashtead Cricket Club Sarah Culhane

Ashtead Football Club Terry Mann

Ashtead Running Group Robert McCaffrey

Ashtead Squash and Tennis Club George Gregory

Ashtead Tennis Players Club James Hadley

Mole Valley Cycle Forum John Muedell

Barnett Wood Lane Infants Norma Penny

City of London Freeman's School Mr P Macdonald

Downsend School Ian Thorpe

Greville Primary Max Depree

St Andrews Secondary Alan Mitchell

St Giles School Tim Smith

St Peter's Primary Richard McKenzie

West Ashtead Primary Rob Hart

Ashtead Kids Club Louise di Trana

Busy Bees Nursery Mrs S Camplin

09/03/2016

Flying Start Nursery

St Giles Playgroup and Nursery

1st Ashtead (Pelham) Scout group

5th Ashtead Brownies Annmarie Sherwin

Ashtead Children's Centre

urrey.sch.

Ashtead Girl Guides

Ashtead Rye Meadows Wetlands David Baker

City of London (Common Management) Andy Thwaites

Ashtead Hospital Shirley Etere

Ashtead Village Traders Mandy Dawson

Exxon Mobil Sophie Foale

Leatherhead and District Chamber of Commerce Jackie Quinn

Mole Valley District Council Jane Smith

Mount Green Housing Association Sarah Sedgwick

Circle Housing Association Arun Dasan

Ashtead Conservative Party Chris Hunt

Ashtead Liberal Democrat Party

Ashtead Labour Party Susan Gilchrist

UKIP

Mole Valley Green Party Jacquette Fewster

Ashtead Independent Councillors Simon Ling

09/03/2016

These 3 are the only ones with the same email contact

09/03/2016

09/03/2016

72 organizations / groups

Appendix 4.2

Consultation announcement to 72 Ashtead Organisations, Clubs, Community

Groups and Businesses

DRAFT NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

18th Jan - 28th Feb 2016

We are following up on our contact with you in early 2015 when we invited you to let us have

your organisation's views and ideas on future development in Ashtead.

Ashtead's Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) is now available to view on the

Ashtead Community Vision website as part of a public consultation that is being held from

18th January to 28th February 2016.

The public consultation is your opportunity to have input into the Ashtead-specific policies

contained within the NDP. Mole Valley District Council will hold a further public consultation

on it before the NDP is sent to an independent examiner for review. Following that, the NDP

will go to referendum in Ashtead and, if adopted, the policies will be the first point of

reference for planning decisions in Ashtead.

We are also holding an Open Morning on Saturday 6th February from 10:00 to 12:30 in the

Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall when we will be happy to discuss the NDP and answer any

questions that you have.

To have your say on the NDP and the policies, click on this link to go to the NDP document:

http://ashteadcommunityvision.org.uk/acv-timeframes/

If you have already read the document and wish to submit your comments use this link to go

directly to the survey questionnaire:

http://surveymonkey.co.uk/r/233M732

A hardcopy printed copy of the NDP will be available for viewing from 19th January at the

Ashtead Library, as well as copies of the individual reports on Housing, the Economy,

Transport, the Environment and Infrastructure.

Please do take this opportunity to let us have your views.

With kind regards,

Ashtead Community Vision on behalf of

Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Forum.

You are receiving this email as a follow up to the contact we had with you in early 2015,

concerning your organisations views and ideas on the future development of Ashtead.

Our mailing address is:


http://surveymonkey.co.uk/r/233M732

Email from Ashtead Bridge College

From: John Cumming

Sent: 25 January 2016 11:56

To: [email protected]

Subject: Ashtead Community Vision

Name: John Cumming

Comment: I was somewhat disappointed in the draft report as it is not addressing the

statement in the Vision to support life-long learning. There is not much said on

this. As The Vision leads on the question of life-long learning perhaps life-long

learning deserves a chapter on its own.

As you will see from my website I teach bridge but there are many other, institutions,

clubs and societies which could be listed and described as deserving of mention.

I understand that a lot of this is voluntary stuff and difficult to define and may ebb and

flow, but perhaps it should fit in somehow.

I just thought I'd mention it as it seems quite an omission.

John Cumming

mailto:[email protected]


Title Forename Surname Position Company/Organisation Email Address Letter Reply

Significant Landowners, including those who put forward sites for potential development in 2014

Mr Robert Billson Agent for The Murreys 4

Mrs Daphne Burnett Owner, Ashtead Woods Road 4

Mr Leon Charles Owner, Ashtead Woods Road 4

Ms Alison Cox Owner, Ashtead Woods Road 4

Mr John Dipre Owner, Ashtead Park Garden Centre 4

Ms Diana Redmayne Owner, Lime Tree Lodge 4

Mr Savery Agent, Ashtead Park Garden Centre Bell Cornwell 4

Mr Ray Houghton Agent for Merton College Bidwells 4 Y

Mr Paul Hicks Circle Housing Mole Valley 4

Mr Roger Adams Surveyor Corporation of London 4

Mr Paul Manning Planning Director GL Hearn Ltd 4

Mr Andrew McNaughton Contact for Chase Farm Rymack Ltd 4

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 5.1

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 5.2

Your ref: Our ref: dd: df: e: Date:

bidwells.co.uk

Bidwells is trading name of Bidwells LLP, a limited liability partnership, registered in England and Wales with number OC344553. Registered office: Bidwell House Trumpington Road Cambridge CB2 9LD. A list of members is available for inspection at the above address.

On behalf of my client, Trinity College Cambridge, please see below a response to the Neighbourhood Development Plan consultation. I have also responded to the consultation via the online questionnaire.

Policy AS-H2 – Balancing the housing mix

Do you support the policy? Yes/No. Yes.

We support the policy’s intention to increase the proportion of smaller family properties in the village in line with the evidence presented in the supporting text (section 4.1). However, we consider that the policy in itself would be ineffective at controlling the mix of new housing because there is no wider framework to which the supply, location and quantum of new housing within the village can be anticipated or encouraged. To rebalance the housing mix in a manner that would meet local needs requires larger scale strategically planned growth including smaller family housing. To enable this to happen Mole Valley District Council must play its part in facilitating larger scale growth to meet local need in Ashtead by pressing ahead with its Local Plan Review in a timely manner. This would provide a framework for ACV to enable solutions to the housing issues identified in the Neighbourhood Plan to be accommodated in a manner that would provide meaningful delivery expectations, in line with an up-to-date development plan, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Guidance.

Do you have any further comments?

Yes/No. Yes.

We support the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan but we are concerned that MVDC’s Local Plan does not provide sufficient steer to enable the issues and aspirations raised in the Neighbourhood Plan to be addressed during its lifetime, notwithstanding the evidence prepared by ACV. This is because MVDC’s development plan is out-of-date and the emerging Local Plan Review is not forthcoming. This produces a situation whereby there is no wider spatial strategy within which ACV can positively formulate its own policies for growth that facilitate development for the good of its own community.

We draw upon the issues of housing and the economy as raised in the consultation document. In respect of housing (section 4.1), the Plan identifies that Ashtead has an ageing population, a decline in the working age population and that the relatively small increase in housing provision through windfall development within the

- 22735

-

26 February 2016

Mr A Ellis Chairman Ashtead Community Vision

Dear Mr Ellis

Ashtead Community Vision - Neighbourhood Development Plan

Consultation

Response by Trinity College Cambridge

In support of Land south of Ermyn Way, Ashtead

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 5.3

Ashtead Community Vision - Neighbourhood Development Plan

Consultation

Response by Trinity College Cambridge

In support of Land south of Ermyn Way, Ashtead 26 February 2016 Page 2

existing development boundaries will not be sufficient to address these trends. In respect of the economy (section 4.2), the Plan identifies recruitment difficulties local businesses encounter because there is an ever increasing disparity between the jobs available and residents’ skills. These issues are inextricably linked to the supply of housing and without a reasonable expectation of new growth to assuage these disparities the Neighbourhood Plan would be ineffective.

The land south of Ermyn Way (identified as broad area “F” in the Green Belt Boundary Review, 13 February 2014) is assessed as the single strategic scale site that contributes little towards the purpose of the Green Belt and that “the current boundary could be considered for amendment and moved along to the strong M25 boundary to the south”. Furthermore, the key considerations raised in respect of the site in the Final Site Assessments (site reference AS11, June 2014) may be adequately addressed through mitigation measures as confirmed by existing technical evidence presented to ACV. However, the Neighbourhood Plan is hamstrung in its identification of the site because the Local Plan is outdated and MVDC has not reviewed its Green Belt. If released from the Green Belt and allocated for residential development the site could provide a meaningful strategic contribution to the development requirements of MVDC in a manner that would satisfy locally identified development and economic needs in Ashtead.

In summary the Neighbourhood Plan needs strategic level steer from MVDC if it is to meet the development and economic needs of the community. Without this the Neighbourhood Plan would be ineffective. ACV’s own evidence points to the suitability of the land south of Ermyn Way to deliver development in a way that would not cause harm to the function of the Green Belt. We consider MVDC should use this evidence to press ahead with its Local Plan Review in a timely manner including the de-allocation of land within the Green Belt which no longer performs a Green Belt function.

Yours sincerely

Ray Houghton

Partner


Statutory consultees, as advised by Mole Valley District Council

Mr John Woodroffe Adult Social Care, SCC 3

Mr Peter Rose Director & Treasurer Ashtead Park Estate Management 1

Mrs Glynis Peterkin Chairman Ashtead Residents Association 1

Mr Bernard Reed Chairman Ashtead Warren Property Association Ltd 1

Mr Trevor Sokell Chairman Bookham Vanguard 1

Mr J Pagella Bookhams Residents' Association 1

Mr Peter Seaward Bookhams Residents' Association 1

Surrey Downs Clinical Commissioning Group

1

CPRE Surrey 1

Ms Suzanne Parkes Principal Planning Officer (Strategy & Policy)

Elmbridge Borough Council 1

Mr Karol Jakubczyk Planning Policy Manager Epsom & Ewell Borough Council 1

Ms Jane Merry Fetcham Residents Association 1

Ms Susanne Taylor Fetcham Residents Association 1

Headley Parish Council 1

Mr Paul Abey Homes and Communities Agency 1

Mrs Caroline Brown Chairman Leatherhead Residents Association 1

Mrs Hilary Porter Secretary Leatherhead Residents Association 1

Mole Valley Access Group 1

Ms Rachel Botcherby National Trust 1

Mr Elliot Stamp Town Planner Network Rail 1 Y

LDF Core Strategy Manager Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames 1

Mrs C Storey committee member Summerfield Residents Association 1

Kath Harrison Principal Spatial Planning Officer Surrey County Council 1 Y

Ms Sue Janota Surrey County Council 1

Mr Charlie Cruise Highway Authority Surrey County Council 1 Y

Mr Clive Smith Surrey Hills AONB Planning Adviser. Surrey Hills Board 1

Mr John Edwards Chairman Surrey Local Nature Partnership 1

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 6.1


Mr Mike Waite Surrey Wildlife Trust 1

.

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 6.2

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 6.3

1

The Secretary Ashtead Neighbourhood Forum

Environment & Infrastructure Directorate

Spatial Planning Team Surrey County Council County Hall Kingston upon Thames KT1 2DY Emailed to: [email protected]

26 February 2016

Dear Sir or Madam

Consultation on the Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Plan

Thank you for consulting Surrey County C cil on Ashtead’s Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP). Our comments relate to transport and education provision. With regard to transport, we would make a minor point that reference should be included to the Mole Valley Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme. We further suggest that in encouraging cycling reference might usefully be made to the Surrey Cycling Strategy and Mole Valley Local Cycling Plan.

As the responsible authority for school place planning and provision we have concerns regarding proposed Policy AS-En1: School Playing Fields. This policy clearly reflects the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 74, which seeks to safeguard playing fields from development. However, paragraph 74 of the NPPF does not stand alone and should be considered alongside paragraph 72 of the same document which requires local planning authorities to give great weight to the need to expand schools.


smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 6.4

2

The county council would consistently seek to avoid undertaking school expansion schemes involving any loss of playing fields. However we are increasingly required to expand schools to meet the additional demand generated by population growth and to serve the needs of new development. Such expansion can sometimes only be feasibly accommodated by extending a school onto part of the playing fields and the capacity of a school site can limit the ability to replace the playing fields on site. It is our view that the provision of essential education infrastructure should be facilitated by a policy framework which clearly reflects competing objectives rather than by policies which continually require, on a routine basis, the making of an exception to policy. We further consider that it is unreasonable to require the county council to provide additional replacement playing fields off-site as a matter of course. In addition to the costs of the school expansion projects, which are largely met by the county council, the additional cost of purchasing land for playing fields off site would be an unduly onerous burden on public funds. We would point out that any redevelopment of playing fields requires approval from the Secretary of State for Education. Furthermore, if playing field land is lost, Sport England will generally require some form of mitigation measure through the planning process. Additionally, loss of playing field facilities providing wider benefits to the community appears adequately safeguarded by proposed NDP Policy AS-Inf3: Valued Community Facilities. In conclusion, we consider Policy AS-En1 effectively constitutes a potential constraint to the provision of a sufficient choice of school places and thereby gives insufficient weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools set out in paragraph 72 of the NPPF which clearly points to the desirability for policy that recognises that education needs can be a legitimate circumstance in which loss of recreation facilities on school sites might be allowed.

I hope these comments are helpful. Please let me know if you require further information.

Yours sincerely

Katharine Harrison Principal Spatial Planning Officer Spatial Planning Team

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 6.3


Statutory consultees requiring specific reference to SEA, as advised by Mole Valley District Council

Mr Charles Muriithi Planning Specialist Environment Agency 2 Y

Mr Alan Byrne Planning Adviser Historic England 2

Mr Robert Lloyd-Sweet Historic Places Adviser (South East England)

Historic England 2

Consultation Service Natural England 2 Y

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 6.4

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 6.5

Environment Agency, Ergon House, Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2AL

03708 506 506

www.gov.uk/environment-agency

Ashtead Neighbourhood Forum c/o Mole Valley District Council Pippbrook Dorking Surrey RH4 1SJ

Our ref: SL/2011/108850/OR-09/IS1 Your ref: Email Date: 29 February 2016

[email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam, Ashtead’s Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP)-Pre-Submission Consultation Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency on the above. We are pleased to note that the Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan covers many issues relevant to the local community. The environment section appears to concentrate on more formal recreation areas and gardens, with little mention of the semi-natural open spaces which are a valuable asset to the community. It would therefore be good to see such areas expanded upon, such as Ashtead Common which is designated as a National Nature Reserve as well as SSSI and is only mentioned on section 3.4. We would also like to see some reference to the Rye Brook included in the environment section. The extent of the Rye Brook on the northern edge of the built up area of Ashtead is subject to flooding and there are areas within flood zones 2 and 3. We have reviewed the Draft SEA Screening Report and agree with the conclusion of the council that there are no significant environmental effects or only local effects which can be mitigated and therefore no need to carry out full Strategic Environmental Assessment.

For other most up to date and accurate environmental evidence we recommend using our Data Share service where you can access our environmental datasets and also datasets from Natural England, Forestry Commission and English Heritage. http://www.geostore.com/environment-agency/

We have attached more detailed comments below for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss this further.

Yours faithfully,

Charles Muriithi MRTPI

Planning Specialist Kent and South London


http://www.geostore.com/environment-agency/

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 6.6


Flood Risk

We would like to see the Rye Brook which flows through Ashtead Common included in the environment section. This is a historically straightened watercourse that has often been neglected and forgotten in places. The Draft SEA Screening Report acknowledges that the extent of the Rye Brook on the northern edge of the built up area of Ashtead is subject to flooding and there are areas within flood zones 2 and 3.

Rye Brook has undergone some river restoration in recent years by local volunteers who value the brook and the surrounding land. An inclusion of the brook in the plan would therefore raise its profile and help to attract further funding through planning, to continue its restoration. Whilst the risk to property flooding in Ashtead from the Rye Brook is low, there are opportunities to improve the river environment.

The Planning Practice Guidance Neighbourhood Planning Paragraph: 061 Reference ID: 7-061-20140306 points out that the overall approach to flood risk management in paragraph 100 of the National Planning Policy Framework applies to neighbourhood planning. In summary, the qualifying bodies involved in neighbourhood planning should:

seek to ensure neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development/community right to build orders are informed by an appropriate assessment of flood risk;

ensure policies steer development to areas of lower flood risk as far as possible;

ensure that any development in an area at risk of flooding would be safe, for its lifetime taking account of climate change impacts;

be able to demonstrate how flood risk to and from the plan area/ development site(s)

will be managed, so that flood risk will not be increased overall, and that opportunities to reduce flood risk, for example, through the use of sustainable drainage systems, are included in the plan/order

The Mole Valley Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) should be the primary source of flood risk information in considering whether particular neighbourhood planning areas may be appropriate for development. As pointed out in the National Planning Policy Practice Guidance paragraph: 064 Reference ID: 7-064-20140306, where the neighbourhood planning area is in Flood Zone 2 or 3, or is in an area with critical drainage problems, advice on the scope of the flood risk assessment required should be sought from the Environment Agency. Where the area may be subject to other sources of flooding, it may be helpful to consult other bodies involved in flood risk management, as appropriate. In all cases where new development is proposed, the sequential approach to locating development in areas of lower flood risk should still be applied within a neighbourhood planning area. The National Planning Policy Practice Guidance stipulates that Neighbourhood Development/Community Right to Build Orders that propose new development that would be;

•contrary to the flood risk vulnerability and flood zone compatibility table (Table 3), or;

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/policy/achieving-sustainable-development/delivering-sustainable-development/10-meeting-the-challenge-of-climate-change-flooding-and-coastal-change/#paragraph_100

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/policy/achieving-sustainable-development/delivering-sustainable-development/10-meeting-the-challenge-of-climate-change-flooding-and-coastal-change/#paragraph_100

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change/making-development-safe-from-flood-risk/

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change/the-exception-test/what-needs-to-be-considered-to-demonstrate-that-development-will-be-safe-for-its-lifetime/

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/296964/LIT_8496_5306da.pdf

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change/reducing-the-causes-and-impacts-of-flooding/


•within areas at risk of flooding where sequential testing shows there to be places at lower flood risk which are suitable and reasonably available for the development proposed, should not be considered appropriate, having regard to the national policies on development and flood risk.

In accordance with PPG Paragraph: 064 Reference ID: 7-064-20140306 the general approach and requirements for site-specific flood risk assessments should be applied to developments in areas at risk of flooding to be permitted by Neighbourhood Development/ Community Right to Build Orders. A site-specific flood risk assessment should support the draft Order. The flood risk assessment checklist may be helpful in this respect

Any works in, under, over or within 8m of the top of the bank of a Main River (Rye Brook) requires prior written consent from the Environment Agency under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and Land Drainage Byelaws. It should be noted that we are unlikely to grant consent for any works that prevent access to the river for both maintenance and improvement works. Surface water flooding

Surrey County Council is the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) responsible for local flood risk such as surface runoff, groundwater and from ordinary watercourses. We strongly recommend Mole Valley District Council (MVDC) consult the LLFA to provide comments in terms of local flood risk. This is particularly important in the light of the flooding experienced during 2013/2014. As pointed out in our representation to the Ashtead Site Assessments consultation, sites such as AS05 (Ashtead Park Garden Centre, Pleasure Pit Road) and AS14 (Land at The Pines, Farm Lane) are at risk from surface water flooding according to the updated Flood Maps for Surface Water published in 2013.

Proposals for surface water management associated with new developments must aim to not increase, and where practicable reduce the rate of runoff from the site as a result of the development in accordance with sustainable drainage principles, SFRA and any guidance provided by the LLFA. Developments should utilise sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) and ensure that surface water run-off is managed as close to its source as possible in line with the following drainage hierarchy:

1 store rainwater for later use

2 use infiltration techniques such as soakaways

3 attenuate rainwater in ponds or open water features for gradual release

4 attenuate rainwater by storing in tanks or sealed water features for gradual release

5 discharge rainwater direct to a watercourse

6 discharge rainwater to a surface water sewer/drain

7 discharge rainwater to the combined sewer

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change/site-specific-flood-risk-assessment/

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change/site-specific-flood-risk-assessment-checklist/


The government has strengthened planning policy on the provision of sustainable drainage for ‘major’ planning applications which was introduced on 6 April 2015. Decisions about the suitability of sustainable drainage provision are made by LLFA. To support the new consultation arrangements, DCLG has changed the Planning Practice Guidance. The main changes are to these pages: Why are sustainable drainage systems important? How the local planning authority should involve the lead local flood authority when determining planning applications and what advice should be given about local flood risks Water supply, wastewater and water quality considerations in plan-making Climate Change allowances Environment Agency has updated the guidance on how climate change could affect flood risk to new development - ‘Flood risk assessments: climate change allowances’ was published on gov.uk on 19th February 2016. It has replaced previous guidance Climate Change Allowances for Planners. It has been finalised in the last few months following user testing with practitioners in

2015.

It has been updated in line with best available scientific evidence to help ensure new housing and other developments remain safe and resilient to flooding, without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

We will update the advice should new scientific evidence become available through future work, such as the National Resilience Review, the next Climate Change Risk Assessment and the next UK climate projections.

The changes The update is based on new scientific evidence. The main changes are to the peak river flow allowances:

They are provided for each river basin district rather than a single national allowance.

A range of allowances are provided based on different probabilities for each epoch, rather than a single allowance for each epoch.

The allowances for the upper end of the range are significantly higher than previous single national allowance.

There is also a small change to peak rainfall allowances. Rather than a single allowance, a range of allowances is provided. The allowance at the upper end of the range is slightly higher than the current single allowance. As previously, the allowances are provided at a national scale. Using the updated allowances and guidance The guidance will come into immediate effect. However, where local plans or development proposals and associated flood risk assessments are well advanced, we would wish to avoid where possible significantly slowing down completion or adding to costs. We will therefore,

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change/reducing-the-causes-and-impacts-of-flooding/why-are-sustainable-drainage-systems-important/

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change/how-the-local-planning-authority-should-involve-the-lead-local-flood-authority-when-determining-planning-applications-and-what-advice-should-be-given-about-local-floo

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change/how-the-local-planning-authority-should-involve-the-lead-local-flood-authority-when-determining-planning-applications-and-what-advice-should-be-given-about-local-floo

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/water-supply-wastewater-and-water-quality/water-supply-wastewater-and-water-quality-considerations-in-plan-making/water-quality/

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-climate-change-allowances

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjuo-jU7s7JAhXIuRoKHXCsAGgQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F296964%2FLIT_8496_5306da.pdf&usg

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjuo-jU7s7JAhXIuRoKHXCsAGgQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F296964%2FLIT_8496_5306da.pdf&usg


other than for particularly vulnerable locations or sensitive developments, continue to base our advice on the existing allowances in the following circumstances:

Where a local plan has been submitted for examination

Where development proposals are well advanced or where a valid planning application has already been submitted to the local planning authority.

Other Environment Agency advice on climate change allowances We are also updating the publication ‘Adapting to Climate Change: Advice to Flood & Coastal Erosion Risk Management Authorities’. This document is used in the design and appraisal of flood risk management schemes and sets out a process to ensure that an economically credible appraisal, taking account of the uncertainties associated with climate change, can be made to support Government investment. Charles Muriithi MRTPI

of 2

Date: 29 February 2016 Our ref: 176742 Your ref:

FAO Tony Tuley Chairman, Ashtead Neighbourhood Forum

SENT BY EMAIL ONLY TO [email protected]

Customer Services Hornbeam House Crewe Business Park Electra Way Crewe Cheshire CW1 6GJ T 0300 060 3900

Dear Tony Planning consultation: Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan - Pre-Submission Consultation 18th Jan to 29th Feb 2016 Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 19 January 2016 which was received by Natural England on 19 January 2016. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. We have considered the Ashtead draft Neighbourhood Development Plan and have the following comments to make: Epsom and Ashtead Commons Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) This important site is located in the north of the Ashtead area. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states at para. 118 that: “... proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest”. We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us. For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Gillian Fensome on

For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to [email protected]. We really value your feedback to help us improve the service we offer. We have attached a


smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 6.7

of 2

feedback form to this letter and welcome any comments you might have about our service. Yours sincerely Gillian Fensome Sustainable Development and Regulation Thames Valley

ASHTEAD NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN (NDP)

SATURDAY 6TH FEBRUARY 2016

10.00am – 12.30pm.

An informal open morning is to be held at APMH as part of a six week consultation

exercise to enable residents of Ashtead to share their views on the Draft NDP with

members of the Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Forum and its working

group Ashtead Community Vision (ACV).

Please be advised that copies of the Ashtead Draft NDP will be also available on

the ACV website at: www.ashteadcommunityvision.org.uk from the 18th January

for six weeks. You can give your views on the policies and leave comments using

the simple online survey. Any email enquiries can be directed to

[email protected]

http://www.ashteadcommunityvision.org.uk/


smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 7

PRESS RELEASE

ASHTEAD FORUM LAUNCHES DRAFT NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN

18th January 2016

The Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Forum is seeking comments from residents over the next

six weeks for a draft plan aimed at ensuring they have a greater say over the future development of

the village.

The Draft Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) has 16 policies that aim to steer future

development decisions by Mole Valley District Council in line with local preferences as well as national

guidelines.

On Saturday 6th February, between 10am and 12.30 pm, the Forum will be holding an open morning

at Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall to encourage residents to engage in the consultation process by

filling in a questionnaire, which seeks their views and comments on each of the 16 policies in the plan.

The questionnaire is also on line on the Forum’s working group website at

www.ashteadcommunityvision.org.uk .

Ashtead Community vision (ACV) – the Forum’s working group - is promoting the Draft NDP through

a range of media including a newsletter delivered every home in the village, posters and articles in

local media.

Forum Chairman Tony Tuley said that it was important that as many people as possible gave their

feedback before the Draft NDP is submitted to Mole Valley District Council.

Tony said: “it’s really important that all residents engage in the development of the plan as it is the

greatest opportunity most will have to shape the future development of Ashtead.”

Tony went on to explain that once the council has accepted the NDP then it would also consult with

residents before sending the NDP to a planning inspector. If the inspector is happy with the plan then

he will order Mole Valley District Council to hold a referendum so that residents can then vote on the

plan. Once adopted the plan will give a strong steer to developers when considering future

development in the village.

Notes to Editors:

Full details of the Draft Ashtead NDP and copies of the questionnaire are available at

www.ashteadcommunityvision.org.uk. You can also find out more about ACV and the Forum’s work at:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ashtead-Community-Vision/ and https://twitter.com/AcvComms

Contact:

John Morgan

Forum Member



https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ashtead-Community-Vision/

https://twitter.com/AcvComms

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 8

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 9.1

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 9.2

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 9.3

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 9.4

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 9.5

Appendix 9.0 Item 6

Ashtead Neighbourhood Forum to review resident’s views on future development

Ashtead Neighbourhood Forum is has launched a consultation exercise into the future

development of ten plots of land in and around the Village.

Each of the plots has been put forward by developers and each assessed for potential

development by the Forum’s working group Ashtead Community Vision (ACV).

Now it’s the villagers’ opportunity to make their views known about each of the sites.

So far, thanks to the support ACV has had from community groups such as ARA, responses

to these consultations have exceeded expectations with hundreds of residents putting

forward their views on issues such as the Green Belt Boundary Review – the first major

element of Local Planning in which the Forum has had to engage.

Once the villagers have had their say on the land assessments, ACV will then compile all the

comments, amend their findings where necessary and then put their findings back to the

Forum. The Forum has to sign off the assessments before submission to Mole Valley District

Council by 23 May.

It’s worth remembering that while Mole Valley’s councillors have the final decision on the

plots of land, the voice of residents of Ashtead will have been presented loudly and clearly

and, thanks to help from professional planners, in a manner consistent with good planning

practice – so our views will have significant weight.

You can take part in the survey on-line at www.astheadcommunityvision.org.uk or fill in the

survey at the open morning to be held at the Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall on the 29th

March.

(253 words ex headline)

http://www.astheadcommunityvision.org.uk/

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 9.6

1

SUMMARY OF SOCIAL MEDIA INTERACTIONS

January & February 2016

Ashtead Community Vision

8th

March 2016

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 10

2

1. FACEBOOK POSTINGS

• The above FaceBook posting dated 8th

January reached 279 people.

• This posting caused 52 people to click through to the ACV WebSite to view the

draft NDP

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 10

3


January reached 42 people

• The above FaceBook posting dated 2nd

February January reached 110 people

4


February reached 24 people

Summary of recent Facebook Posts:

5

2. TWITTER POSTINGS

8

3. STREETLIFE POSTINGS

9

4. ACV WEBSITE ACTIVITY

Appendix 11 Consultation announcement to 568 subscribers

Draft Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Plan Public Consultation

18th January to 28th February 2016

Ashtead's Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) is now available to view on the

Ashtead Community Vision website as part of a public consultation that it being held from

18th January to 28th February 2016.

The public consultation is your opportunity to have input to the Ashtead-specific policies in

the NDP. Mole Valley District Council will hold a further public consultation before the NDP is

sent to the independent examiner for review. following that, the NDP will go to referendum in

Ashtead and, if adopted, the policies will be the first point of reference for planning decisions

in Ashtead.

We are holding an Open Morning on Saturday 6th February from 10:00 to 12:30 at the

Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall, where we will be happy to discuss the NDP and answer any

questions that you may have.

To have your say on the NDP and the policies contained within it, click on this link to go to

the NDP document:


If you have already read the NDP document and wish to submit your comments use this link

to go directly to the online survey questionnaire, which will be available for completion from

18th January to 28th February 2016:

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/233M732

A hardcopy printed copy of the NDP will also be available for viewing at the Ashtead Library

from 19th January, as well as copies of the individual detailed reports on Housing, the

Economy, Transport, Environment and Infrastructure.

Please do take this opportunity to let us have your views.

With kind regards,

Ashtead Comunity Vision on behalf of

Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Forum

You are receiving this email because you asked to be added to our mailing list

Our mailing address is:


https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/233M732

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 11

This questionnaire seeks your feedback on Ashtead's Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan(NDP) and the policies within it. It forms part of the public consultation on the NDP, which will berevised in the light of responses received.

Welcome to the Public Consultation on Ashtead's Draft Neighbourhood DevelopmentPlan!

Your contact details will be used to keep you informed of developments as a result of this publicconsultation. They will also be passed to Mole Valley District Council so that you can be keptinformed during the next stages of the NDP process.

If you feel unable to provide your details, it will not be possible to take your answers intoconsideration when reviewing the responses to the public consultation.

Name and Contact Details

Name

Address

Address 2

Town

County

Postcode

Email Address

1. Your name and contact details.

The policy:In addition to the design criteria set out in Appendix 11 of the Mole Valley Local Plan, developmentof the site at Murreys Court must include the provision of a public footpath that connects the sitewith the existing footpath between Agates Lane and Skinners Lane, which links the residential areato The Street.

Housing Policy AS-HI: The Land at Murreys Court

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 12

Please use the box below for any comments on Housing Policy AS-H1.

2. Do you agree with the Draft NDP Policy AS-H1?

Yes

No

I have no view on this policy

The policy:1. Housing developments of 5 or more dwellings should conform to the following proportions ofdwelling types, or as near to them as possible: 10% - one bedroom; 35% - two bedrooms; 35% -three bedrooms; 20% - 4 or more bedrooms. 2. Proposals that increase the proportion of 1 & 2 bedroom properties and reduce the proportionof 4 or more bedroom properties will be encouraged.

Housing Policy AS-H2: Balancing the Housing Mix



Yes

No


Housing Policy AS-H3: Infill and Smaller Sites

The policy:On housing developments of between 1 to 4 dwellings:

1. The provision of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings will be sought on previously developed sitesand developments may contain only the number of 4+ bedroom houses as pre-existed on the siteimmediately prior to development.2. The provision of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings will be sought on previously undeveloped sitesand developments may contain only one 4+ bedroom dwelling.



Yes

No


The policy:Housing developments on sites in the Central Area of Ashtead (see map at Appendix 3) should bedesigned to be accessible and adaptable dwellings that are attractive to, and suitable for, thoseseeking to downsize, with particular reference to Mole Valley Policy CS3, clause 3.

Housing Policy AS-H4: Central Area Developments



Yes

No


The policy:In accordance with Mole Valley Policies CS13 & CS14, developments must be visually integratedwith their surroundings and designed to reflect the character of the local area and street scene.

Housing Policy AS-H5: Maintaining Built Character



Yes

No


The policy:

Housing Policy AS-H6: Off Street Parking

Off-street parking is to be provided at residential developments in accordance with Table H6.

Table H61 and 2 bed flats 1 space per unit1 and 2 bed houses 1+ space per unit3 and more bed dwellings 2+ spaces per unitWhen a development is for more than 10 dwellings a minimum of 20% of spaces is to be allocatedfor visitors. Consideration will be given to a reduction in the requirements if it can bedemonstrated that the management of space allocation through schemes such as residentialpermits, organised rental arrangements or the use of on-site car sharing demonstrate that areduction is justified.



Yes

No


The policy:The area of shops comprising numbers 196-230 Barnett Wood Lane is designated as a LocalShopping Centre, in addition to the existing shopping centres at The Street and Craddocks Paradedefined on the Mole Valley Local Plan Proposals Map. Within the area defined on the map at Figure?, proposals involving changes or use or increases in shopping floorspace will be consideredagainst Mole Valley Local Plan Policy S5 and Core Strategy Policy CS8.

Economy Policy AS-Ec1: Designate Barnett Wood Lane shops as a Local Shopping Area

Please use the box below for any comments on Economy Policy AS-Ec1.

8. Do you agree with the Draft NDP Policy AS-Ec1?

Yes

No


The policy:The Leg of Mutton and Cauliflower (48 The Street), The Brewery Inn, (15 The Street) and TheWoodman, Barnett Wood Lane, should be regarded as community facilities and proposals whichwould result in the loss of any existing public houses will be resisted in accordance with CoreStrategy Policy CS17.

Economy Policy AS-Ec2: Existing Public Houses



Yes

No


Economy Policy AS-Ec3: 53-57 The Street

The policy:Any development proposals for 53-57 The Street should include a convenience retail store atground floor level, with a Net Sales Area not exceeding 682sqm and a Gross Floor Area notexceeding 1,349sqm. No more than 10% of the Net Sales Area should be for the sale of comparisongoods. The customer entrance to the retail store must be from The Street only and not from any carparking area to the rear of the site.



Yes

No


The policy:Proposals for the expansion of school premises should allow for the retention of playing field landfor the use of the school for sports activities. Proposals should also take into account the benefit ofsuch playing field land to the wider Ashtead community as well as for the school. Where there is noalternative to such land being used for school expansion, an alternative sports area should befound within the Ashtead Neighbourhood Boundary.

Environment Policy AS-En1: School Playing Fields

Please use the box below for any comments on Environment Policy AS-En1.

11. Do you agree with the Draft NDP Policy AS-En1?

Yes

No


The policy:Areas of amenity grass, grass verges, trees and hedgerows should be retained to maintain the opencharacter of the village. Development proposals must be supported by a design that retains existingtrees and hedges.

Environment Policy AS-En2: Amenity Space



Yes

No


Environment Policy AS-En3: Retaining Character

The policy:All developments should take account of the character of the surrounding area. Largerdevelopments should include a mix of building styles where that is appropriate to the character oftheir surroundings.

All developments should be designed to include gardens and/or green space that maintains orenhances the character of the local area.



Yes

No


The policy:Development proposals to expand primary care provision in Ashtead including any private medicalservices will be supported, provided the design and scale of the proposals is compatible with thecharacter and amenities of the location. This will include permitting change of use of residentialand/or commercial premises to support primary care provision where these proposed new facilitiesare in accessible locations which would meet local demand.

Infrastructure Policy AS-Inf1: Improving Health Facilities

Please use the box below for any comments on Infrastructure Policy AS-Inf1.

14. Do you agree with the Draft NDP Policy AS-Inf1?

Yes

No


The policy:New developments will be encouraged to adjust property boundaries at the road frontage to enableimproved pedestrian footpaths to be provided where it is keeping with the area.

Infrastructure Policy AS-Inf2: Pedestrian Access



Yes

No


The policy:

Infrastructure Policy AS-Inf3: Valued Community Facilities

Any proposals that result in the loss of the valued communities facilities named above, includingany change to their associated parking areas, will be resisted unless it can be proved that there isno longer any need for those facilities, as set out in Policy CS17 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy2009.

Proposals that result in the expansion or improvement of existing valued community facilities tomeet local demand will be supported, provided the design and scale of the proposals is compatiblewith the character and amenities of the location.


16. Do you agree with Draft NDP Policy AS-Inf3?

Yes

No


The policy:The following projects are identified as local priorities for infrastructure improvements, whichshould be considered by MVDC, in consultation with the Ashtead community, for funding throughthe neighbourhood portion of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL):

*Provide public toilet facilities adjacent to the Queen Elizabeth II Playing Field, either at the OldPavilion off Greville Park Road or near the Youth Centre.

*Install Real Time Passenger Information at the following bus stops in the village: on the north sideof The Street and on both sides of Barnett Wood Lane, by Ashtead Pond.

*Improvements to pedestrian access on narrow roads with no paved footpaths, where consultationwith local residents suggests that this would be supported and where there would not be anadverse impact on the character of the area.

*Projects to promote and improve safe cycling routes, taking a holistic view of cycle links both

Infrastructure Policy AS-Inf4: Infrastructure Priorities

within Ashtead and to Epsom and Leatherhead town centres and schools.

*Provide a pedestrian crossing over the A24 at or near the junctions of Farm Lane and BramleyWay.

*Improve signage to public car parks such as at Grove Road and adjacent to Ashtead PeaceMemorial Hall, to encourage use of car parks and minimise on-street parking.



Yes

No


The Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan

18. Do you have any further comments on any aspect of the Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan or thedocument as a whole?

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this first stage public consultation on Ashtead's Neighbourhood Development Plan.

The timetable for completion of the NDP process and details of the stages involved are shown in Section 2.3 - Status and Plan of theDraft NDP.

Summary of Questionnaire Responses 18 Jan-29 Feb 2016 A total of 98 people responded using the online questionnaire & its paper version but a number of them have not responded to some or all of the questions. The percentages shown below are of the number of people who answered each question.

Policy number

No. of responders

Agree with policy

Disagree with policy

Has no view on policy

No of comments received from individuals

Contact details

93

AS-H1 92 82% 4% 14% 15

AS-H2 90 68% 28% 4% 35

AS-H3 90 70% 24% 6% 25

AS-H4 92 82% 10% 8% 19

AS-H5 92 92% 6% 2% 16

AS-H6 93 71% 19% 10% 28

AS-Ec1 91 85% 10% 5% 20

AS-Ec2 93 89% 4% 7% 14

AS-Ec3 91 73% 22% 5% 35

AS-En1 92 91% 6% 3% 15

AS-En2 92 95% 4% 1% 16

AS-En3 91 93% 6% 1% 14

AS-Inf1 91 87% 9% 4% 15

AS-Inf2 92 92% 6% 2% 16

AS-Inf3 91 90% 4% 6% 5

AS-Inf4 91 87% 9% 4% 39

Comments:

NDP 53

Housing 138

Economy 69

Environment 45

Infrastructure 75

Total 380

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 13

Comments: AS-H1

6

I am concerned about the detailed planning for the future of Murray's

Court when the present owner is still in residence.

8

This will encourage people to walk rather than drive

13

Needs to link the existing development at The Murrays with the footpath

that takes you to The Street.

21

This area is ideal for improving the mix of housing, provided it is

sympathetically done, of course, and would give the Barnett Wood Road

shops a boost.

30

The area around Murreys Court has a variety of different styles of

housing, built in different eras. We think that there is a potential conflict

between this and the policy to have buildings in keeping with the area if

that means always building in the style of existing housing. The policy

should encourage a small proportion of good quality, individual, 21st

century, architect designed houses as well, so that this variety continues

for future generations.

34

Should we consider whether this land could be used as a "green space"

rather than for housing? It is in a good position and is a rare

opportunity to increase this type of public facility.

44

The path would need to be properly maintained.

45

I believe the footpath should be included. Poorly phrased question!

52

There is a serious lack of social housing, and at the same time far too

many 4 bedroom houses. it would be good if the planners adopt a more

over-arching attitude to housing. Few people who are low wage earners

can afford to buy or rent in this area. So where do we find the carers,

gardeners, mechanics, nurses and teachers etc,. that we all need to be a

coherent community?

75

As it is near me - do not want more traffic and noise etc.

smithj

Typewritten Text

Appendix 14

82

As it says at para 4.1.1, "There are many public rights of way around

Ashtead, which link residential areas to each other, to the main shopping

areas, to transport facilities and to the open green space within and

around the village. This network is a key asset that must be protected

and enhanced". Footpaths such as this are an *essential* feature.

84

I strongly support the retention and enhancement of the footpath

network and this policy is welcome as far as it goes. I would have

preferred it to be more ambitious with the continuation of the footpath

to link with The Murrays and Shires Close, and perhaps even through to

West Farm Avenue to join the existing link to Harriotts Lane.

87

There is enormous amenity value from the system of connecting

footpaths through the village and this must be preserved/extended in

the event of development of the site at Murreys Court. Such footpaths

allow many residents, particularly children to minimise exposure to traffic

on the narrow lanes or the bussier roads. They provide a pleasant option

to move through the village.

96

I am also concerned that there is a thorough ecological assessment of

the site prior to development as it may well includes areas that are relicts

of the ancient footprint of Barnet Wood and also veteran trees.

99

The delivery of the Mole Valley District Council`s (MVDC) Plan quoted is

a dependency on this policy being achievable. The evidence in the

MVDC plan dates from 2000(1). Additionally the Plan is stated on

MVDC`s website as “currently being reviewed” (1). The plan in the

Introduction at paragraph 1.5 of the section titled “Timescale of the Plan”

explains that the plan covers the period up to 2006- ten years ago. It is

accepted that the subsequent development of the MVDC Core Strategy

2009 includes reference policy HSG5, to which the Appendix refers, as

“saved” (3).

The risk that arises with this policy is that the revised MVDC plan

changes it`s aspirations for the site that impacts on this policy.

As a suggestion a different approach might have been to refer to the

MVDC Core Strategy 2009 Policy CS18 which deals with Improved

Transport Options and Accessibility. Paragraph 7.2 provides the

discussion and includes reference to consideration of these aspects in

development proposals (4). This is a far wider ranging standalone policy

that gives much more flexibility to influence any proposals that might

arise for the site at The Murrays.

It could be said that the site is already linked to the footpath between

Agates Lane and Skinners Lane (and onwards to The Street) by virtue of

the existing access from Agates Lane that is across the road from The

Murrays.

As an aside this site is, as far as is known, a privately owned site, making

pontification for assume future redevelopment for housing that has

gone on since at least 2000 inappropriate.

Therefore this ANF NDP consultation document policy relies on other

factors which include a policy that is under review for its successes, and

could be considered as already being met by an existing footpath.

This policy requires review to align the aspirations with current provision

and MVDC policies.

Comments: AS-H2

5

I might even be tougher and push for a higher % of 2 beds.

6

This will not prevent infill developments of 2 - 4 dwellings all with 4+

bedrooms.

7

Forcing the mix like this contradicts on page 3 'maintain the current mix

of housing sizes'. So a builder could appeal and win because it's

contradictory.

8

This goes some way to ensuring more of the type of properties needed

in Ashtead are built

11

Unless flexibility is available to developers less rather than more

dwellings will be built. In the private sector the investor takes 100% risk;

without a return on capital there is no incentive for them. Unfortunately

land is the most expensive part of a development in Ashtead and

currently 4 & 5 bedroom dwellings provide the best return on capital

employed. However I accept the need for starter homes but currently

suitable sites are not available

17

The proportion of 1 and 2 bedroom properties should be higher. This

will allow young people and starter families to buy their first homes.

19

I'm not happy if Ashtead starts to have a lot of communal of flat type

buildings, for 1-2 bedroom dwellings as this would not encourage

Ashtead as a place for families to live, plus would be out of keeping with

local area.

21

Why increase the 4 bed stock at all?

22

I would reduce 4 plus to 10%. We need more younger skilled non-

financial sector people

27

I do not have any issues with redevelopment of current sites, but I do

feel the high level of retirement apartments being built excludes a large

proportion of the local population from obtaining affordable housing.

29

We do not wish to increase the proportion of one bedroomed properties

when the demand is for 2-3 bedroomed homes.

36

Need to restrict enlargement of current housing stock into multi-

roomed mansions especially bungalows.

37

The housing mix should depend on the area the development is placed

in. Small houses/flats should not be put in an area of large houses &

gardens. There should positively be no building on the Green Belt or in

or near a Conservation Area (and no alteration of Green Belt boundaries).

42

No, dwellings of 1 or 2 bedrooms required & stop alteration of existing

small properties.

48

The village needs to retain its open character. 80%+ for 3 bedrooms or

less housing will stress local services without meeting the village's needs.

We should recognise that such housing will attract more people into the

village rather than meeting the existing local needs.

49

This could attract commuters from inner London boroughs who could

outbid local families.

51

Not totally. I understand that we need a mix of housing, however,

discouraging less 4 bedroom houses my backfire in the long term.

Families are getting bigger and the plan to not build any more detached

4 beds may well discourage people in the long term from moving to

Ashtead. I also feel that the issue of % of social housing has not been

addressed here.

52

We already have too many 4 bedroom houses, a more realistic plan

would be 30% one bedroom, 35% two bedroom and 20% three

bedroom - 0% four bedroom

59

Although I agree with proposal 2, it should be reflected in the

proportions i.e. 20% 1 bedroom, 40% 2 bedroom, 35% 3 bedroom and

only 5% 4 or more bedroom houses. There is also no mention of

affordable housing or council/housing association rented housing.

67

I think Ashtead probably has enough 4+ bedroom houses. One problem

is that many are occupied by only one or two people (my husband and I

fall into this category). The solution proposed for older people when

they might wish to move to a smaller property seems to be a flat. For

many living in a house, having a garden is most important so moving to

a flat while still reasonably active is not an option, but a smaller

bungalow could well be an option. However there are not many

bungalows in Ashtead and many of them have been turned into houses,

therefore I think the building of reasonably small bungalows should be

encouraged. There is also a need for affordable and social housing for

single people, couples and families.

69

I also wonder if there is any way that we can discourage the alteration

and extension of existing housing stock (particularly bungalows being

converted into large family houses).

71

Although I do think that the proportion of one bedroom properties is

too high and the four bedroom proportion is too low.

72

Agree that policy should be to maintain the balance of age groups and

occupations within the community. The policy addresses new builds.

Greater control of modifications to existing homes would be desirable as

the availability of smaller homes including bungalows is being adversely

affected by these being 'upgraded' to 4 or 5 bedroom expensive family

homes.

73

The link between the ageing population and need to downsize is well

made

76

However, if such developments are carried out in the two estates on the

'blind' side of the railway (Links Road etc.), I think they should be

preceded by the installation of either a road bridge across the railway, or

a road connection to the Wells area at the edge of Epsom which has

been connected to the A24 by a road bridge for many years. Otherwise

the inevitable increase to the road traffic to and from the 'blind' side of

the railway will worsen the already bad traffic congestion at the present

crossing next to the Ashtead railway station.

79

There is a strong need for much more low cost housing especially for

key workers - health service and care workers, teachers, firemen etc. The

need will continue to grow with more school places required, and an

increasingly aged population requiring care and support. I was born and

brought up in Surrey, but have lived in several different parts of England,

and I have to say that I sometimes come across a rather unpleasant

attitude in this area, a belief that owning a large detached house

somehow makes you a better person than those on a low wage. I know

that many builders prefer to build larger houses, but should builders be

determining our housing stock? Maybe we should be looking at some

innovative ideas for house building e.g. prospective owners/tenants

helping with the build.

83

Statutory Consultee – please see response in Appendix 6.3 of the

Consultation Statement.

84

However I am concerned that the emphasis on one and two bedroom

properties will encourage developers to increase the proportion of

blocks of flats, which will themselves change the character of Ashtead

which is predominately separate or semi-detached dwellings in their own

grounds.

85

I support the intention of the policy however I feel that it gives

developers too much room to argue about what "should" means and

that they will say it does not mean shall or must.

86

Developers know better than anyone what is going to sell - it is their

business. Market forces should be left alone and developers will build

what suits each area. By increasing the number of smaller bedroomed

properties there will be more people moving to the area that will put a

great strain on the already stretched amenities including schools and

doctors surgery. The traffic situation is already awful and this would only

get worse. Ashtead is a village lets not forget that.

87

Whilst not being able to comment on the analysis used to generate the

percentages in part 1, it is very clear that the needs of younger people

wishing to purchase their first property and older residents wishing to

downsize will benefit from part 2 of the policy. Sucha policy is important

if planning policies are to be supported by existing residents and if

Ashtead's community spirit is to be preserved into the future.

88

The above policy AS-H2 as written is more suitable for a large new town

or suburb development, but not for the existing Ashtead environment

that has evolved over many years. This policy must be rewritten to

“reflect the ratio of dwelling types that already exist in the immediate

locality” to any new development that would occur in Ashtead.

95

I would like to see a rise to 20% for 1 bed properties and a

corresponding 10% reduction for 4 beds and more to 10%

96

This is still much too prescriptive. I wonder also how one can have 10%

of five properties being one-bedroomed as that would be half of one of

the properties, the minimum number to use for this to apply would have

to be not 5 but 10 properties to enable 10% to equate to a one

bedroomed one. I feel all developments should be directed to

maintaining the existing character of the areas, and that that policy

should override other aspirations.

97

Landowner Consultee - Please see letter sent under separate cover in

Appendix 5.3 of the Consultation Statement.

98

The Plan and BSA show demand for smaller homes rather than 4+ beds,

which already a/c for 40% of all homes, compared with 30% in MV as a

whole. When 3 beds are included, this rises to 76% (MV 64%). In

contrast, Ashtead has only 24% homes with 2 or fewer beds (MV 36%).

Ashtead already has a bias towards larger homes. Yet occupancy levels

show 60% have only 1 or 2 household members, Older people want to

downsize, and younger need smaller affordable homes to rent or buy, so

they can remain in Ashtead. The policy in pt. 1 seems to ignore the

ACV’s own findings. The bias is still towards larger properties, which we

have plenty of already. My proposal would be: a min. 20% 1 bed; 40% 2

bed; 30% 3 bed; and a max. 10% 4 bed. Social housing should also form

a % of all new developments to meet the needs of the Housing Register

and provide homes for those on average earnings, who cannot afford to

buy or rent in the private sector.

99

This ACV NDP consultation document policy (AS-H2) has the potential to

further increase the volume of residential units within the Ashtead NDP

area. Sufficient infrastructure whether in the area or accessible from the

area is required to support the residents of these proposed units. This

type of infrastructure is not provided by the MVDC as a planning

authority- provision is by the Surrey County Council (SCC). The

consultation document makes reference to infrastructure and that it is

already at least “busy” e.g. schools, health care, and parking. A single

dimensional policy of this type will impact on infrastructure- it should be

a policy that has parallels that ensure sufficient infrastructure is provided,

either as an extension to that which exists, or an accessible alternative

e.g. expansion outside of the Ashtead NDP area.

It is noted that there is no reference to MVDC`s CS3 which deals with

Balancing Housing Provision (5). This policy appears to complement that

strategy. It is also disappointing to note the lack of reference to

“affordable housing” in support of MVDC`s CS 4 (5). That part of the Core

Strategy gives guidelines on provision of affordable housing. This

omission could suggest that the NDP consultation document for

Ashtead is not encouraging provision of housing that that is accessible

to all.

(5) n/k. (2009). Core Strategy 2009 Section 6.1 New Homes for Mole Valley

CS 3. Available: http://molevalley-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/cs/cs_-

_adopted_oct_2009/core_strategy_-

_adopted_october_2009_1?pointId=d1682747e221. Last accessed 20th

February 2016

Comments: AS-H3

7

This policy again contradicts 'maintain the current mix of housing sizes'.

11

We must allow market forces to dictate policy. The moment inflexible

policies are employed nothing happens

19

Not keen on any flat or 1/2 bed dwellings as out of keeping with area,

will not encourage families to live here. It could also for point 2

encourage lots of buildings, with little grass/garden on a plot of land,

21

Subject to previous comment about 4bed homes

[Comment from AS-H2: Why increase the 4 bed stock at all?]

22

See earlier text [re HS2]

[Comment from AS-H2:

I would reduce 4 plus to 10%. We need more younger skilled non-

financial sector people]

28

I agree with not building houses on Greenfield Land - but don't agree

with the prescribed housing mix. Surely that is up to the developer who

has acquired the land and the planning committee of the council?

29

Those in need of three bedroomed properties at present may, in the not-

too-distant future require a four bedroomed home. We should not limit

them to this extent.

37

We have a similar comment here to that as for AS-H2.

[Comment from AS-H2:

The housing mix should depend on the area the development is placed

in. Small houses/flats should not be put in an area of large houses &

gardens. There should positively be no building on the Green Belt or in

or near a Conservation Area (and no alteration of Green Belt

boundaries).]

39

[Yes] but I haven't noticed any policy on affordable housing eg for the

young doctors & nurses & teachers that we need.

48

The means in effect that NO four bed homes will be built.

49

I actually agree with the first point but not the second.

51

As per my previous answer [to AS-H2]

[Comment from AS-H2 :

Not totally. I understand that we need a mix of housing, however,

discouraging less 4 bedroom houses my backfire in the long term.

Families are getting bigger and the plan to not build any more detached

4 beds may well discourage people in the long term from moving to

Ashtead. I also feel that the issue of % of social housing has not been

addressed here.

56

I think that there should be no more 4+bedroom houses. Fewer

bedroom houses, which are cheaper of course, need to be available for

first -time and young buyers.

69

It is very important to the life of Ashtead to meet the housing needs of

all sections of the local community, including young families and older

people.

71

Most of the sites that come up for development in Ashtead will fall into

this category. Ashtead has many areas that have very distinct characters

- much older, smaller terraced properties, larger properties in substantial

plots, newer build 1930s properties or even very new estates. We will

dramatically change the character of all of these separate areas of

Ashtead by trying to impose the building of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom houses

into developments in areas THAT DO NOT HAVE AND NEVER DID HAVE

1, 2 or 3 bedroom properties there previously. Maybe we should have a

central area where we suggest this policy but not impose it so tightly

that we will change the character of Ashtead. All developments should

be in character with the surrounding area - if the surrounding area has

large properties then large properties should be allowed. I also do NOT

think that smaller properties should be disguised as flats in areas where

no flats exist at the moment.

76

My comments on Housing Policy AS-H2 apply here also.

[Comment on AS-H2:

However, if such developments are carried out in the two estates on the

'blind' side of the railway (Links Road etc.), I think they should be

preceded by the installation of either a road bridge across the railway, or

a road connection to the Wells area at the edge of Epsom which has

been connected to the A24 by a road bridge for many years. Otherwise

the inevitable increase to the road traffic to and from the 'blind' side of

the railway will worsen the already bad traffic congestion at the present

crossing next to the Ashtead railway station.

79

Please see my previous comments on housing provision

[Comment on AS-H2:

There is a strong need for much more low cost housing especially for

key workers - health service and care workers, teachers, firemen etc. The

need will continue to grow with more school places required, and an

increasingly aged population requiring care and support. I was born and

brought up in Surrey, but have lived in several different parts of England,

and I have to say that I sometimes come across a rather unpleasant

attitude in this area, a belief that owning a large detached house

somehow makes you a better person than those on a low wage. I know

that many builders prefer to build larger houses, but should builders be

determining our housing stock? Maybe we should be looking at some

innovative ideas for house building e.g. prospective owners/tenants

helping with the build.]

83



84

Same comment as previous question.

[Comment on AS-H2:

However I am concerned that the emphasis on one and two bedroom

properties will encourage developers to increase the proportion of

blocks of flats, which will themselves change the character of Ashtead

which is predominately separate or semi-detached dwellings in their own

grounds.]

86

This policy will serve to change the nature of Ashtead as a whole.

Historically Ashtead has been a quiet and open area with homes on

generous plots - it could be described as a generally affluent area in the

main. This policy will undoubtedly undermine these desirable qualities.

87

This policy is consistent with AS-H2 and additionally would act as a brake

against overdevelopment on smaller infill sites. The policy could be

criticised as overly prescriptive as drafted and should leave more room

for neighbouring residents affected by such future potential infills to

influence a succesful development outcome for them that they may be

different from the policy direction. Adding the words "in general"

after "will be sought" might be sufficient to overcome that criticism.

88

This proposed policy AS-H3 will destroy the Character of Ashtead by

imposing out of character housing developments. The Bookham NDP

policy BKH2 is more applicable and suitable for Ashtead and should

replace the current Ashtead NDP wording. Bookham Policy BKH2 is

stated in section 18 of this questionnaire, because of the limited space

for comment in this box.

94

Does the policy have minimum room sizes? Also can the number of

bathrooms be part of the provision?

96

Again, this is far too prescriptive, and any recommendation should, in my

view, be subservient to maintaining the character of the area. That means

recognizing that in some parts of Ashtead all developments should

continue to be of 4+ bedroomed properties. At present, there is a trend

for 3-and 4-bedroomed properties to be extended to 4+ and 5+

bedroomed ones; some of this would be within "permitted

development", but perhaps that practice be discouraged in this or

another policy (even though it would be most unpopular)

98

Your statistics show that much of the demand for smaller properties

comes from older residents wishing to down size. If these are provided,

larger properties of 4+ beds will be released for families to move into.

So I do not see the need to maintain the number of 4+ bed as pre-

existed on developed sites (pt.1), or to build an additional 4+ dwelling

on an undeveloped site (pt.2). Land availability is constrained in

Ashtead, which is already not meeting its target for house building. By

building smaller houses and small apartment blocks, we can maximise

the limited space available and better meet demand.

99

The same points are made as to AS-H2. This ANF NDP consultation

document policy (AS-H3) has the potential to increase the volume of

residential units within the Ashtead NDP area. Sufficient infrastructure

whether in the area or accessible from the area is required to support the

residents of these proposed units. This type of infrastructure is not

provided by the MVDC as a planning authority- provision is by the

Surrey County Council (SCC). The consultation document makes

reference to infrastructure and that it is already at least “busy” e.g.

schools, health care, and parking. A single dimensional policy of this type

will impact on infrastructure- it should be a policy that has parallels that

ensure sufficient infrastructure is provided, either as an extension to that

which exists, or an accessible alternative e.g. expansion outside of the

Ashtead NDP area.

It is noted that there is no reference to MVDC`s CS3 which deals with

Balancing Housing Provision (5). This policy appears to complement that

strategy. It is also disappointing to note the lack of reference to

“affordable housing” in support of MVDC`s CS 4 (5). That part of the Core

Strategy gives guidelines on provision of affordable housing. This

omission could suggest that the NDP consultation document for

Ashtead is not encouraging provision of housing that that is accessible

to all.

(5) n/k. (2009). Core Strategy 2009 Section 6.1 New Homes for Mole Valley

CS 3. Available: http://molevalley-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/cs/cs_-

_adopted_oct_2009/core_strategy_-

_adopted_october_2009_1?pointId=d1682747e221. Last accessed 20th

February 2016

Comments: AS-H4

2

Particular attention should be paid to the facades of the building to

preserve the character of the area. Many recent developments in the

borough have used cheap building materials and have prioritised

density and profit at the expense of the public realm.

7

There seems little point in appearing to favour 'accessible'

development in this area. Might not this lead to the other desired

objective of 2/3 homes being unaffordable to develop? Besides,

development by Churchill (and others?) outside this area is meeting

this demand. Does it mean that 2/3 bedroom homes without good

access should only be built outside this area?

8

The provision of such properties should enable older residents to

remain in Ashtead

11

It would be helpful to attach appendix 3 to this page of the

questionnaire. Unfortunately I have been unable to trace it on your

website and therefore cannot comment

19

There are too Many houses here any way and I oppose more

building work

21

but do not imagine that the elderly will be content to live on a main

road, if they are coming from a quieter area

25

I think that there should be a mix of housing not just aimed at people

who would like to down size. This should be aimed at a wider

spectrum of age's to included young professional, family and

person's looking to move with in the village.

37

We agree, but see comments on AS-H6 re the need for sufficient

parking. This area does not seem to be in the Green Belt - it is

important not to have development of any tyoe in the Green Belt.

[Comment on AS-H6:

There is not enough off street parking provided by far. Everybody in

Surrey practically now has (& needs to have) their own car & even a 2

bed flat needs 2 parking spaces - otherwise there will be parking on

the pavements which looks a mess and is dangerous & inconvenient

for pedestrians.]

45

This will cause too great a distortion in the age profiles. A better mix

must be maintained.

49

Yes, elderly residents wishing to downsize would certainly want to be

near shops, doctors, etc.

66

Ageing population wanting to stay in Ashtead need somewhere to

live and so release the family homes they are often living in to new

people, and so keep the balance of ages.

67

As well as those downsizing, younger people need accommodation in

Ashtead to keep the village vibrant.

69

This is absolutely right. It will not only help older people to remain

independent and fulfilled for longer but also the knock-on effect will

be to free up housing for families.

82

My agreement to the two previous policy statements [AS-H2 & AS-

H3] is predicated on acceptance of this one.

84

With the proviso that large blocks of flats be limited.

86

This seems sensible BUT again market forces should be allowed to

determine what happens in the area and I would be very opposed to

seeing housing that is restricted to the over 65s in the Central Area

described in the policy. Make accommodation accessible and

adaptable but without any restrictions as to who can buy.

96

Subject to the maintainance of the existing character of the area -- a

phrase that could be introduced as the first sentence of this proposal.

98

The needs of people with disabilities for accessible and adaptable

dwellings should also be taken into account.

99

The map at Figure 9 and Appendix 3 in the ANF NDP consultation

document shows a shaded area to represent “Central Ashtead”. This

includes the land that is bordered by Woodfield (west), Barnett Wood

Lane (south), Woodfield Lane (east) and the railway line (north) which

is part of the Metropolitan Greenbelt- this is shown in ACV`s

Greenbelt Boundary Review at Appendix 1 (6). The QE2 playing fields

are also included on the map in this consultation document.

Separate national and local policies protect Greenbelt areas and the

QE2 playing fields. Protection of the QE2 playing fields is also an

aspiration of this ANF NDP at Policy AS-EN1. Neither of these areas

should be considered as potential sites for development. The map

supporting this proposed

policy should be redrawn to reflect this.

Therefore this policy as drafted is not agreeable.

(6) n/k. (2014). Ashtead Neighbourhood Forum Greenbelt Boundary

Review Appendix 1. Available:

https://ashteadcommunityvision.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/gbbr-

published-version-final.pdf. Last accessed 20th February 2016

Comments: AS-H5

5

But more importantly are the quality of the products used so their

visual appearance is lasting. to often developments look good for a

few years and very quickly deteriorate.

6

Two-storey dwellings should NOT be permitted in an area where

existing housing is single-storey.

28

It should be a fully inclusive policy and should include fencing and

greenery/gardens around housing. A lot of the new fencing around

housing is just ugly - take a look at the house on Woodfield Lane that

has ripped out their hedging in favour of wooden fencing.

30

We think that there is a potential conflict between this policy and

continuing to have a variety of building styles reflecting the era in

which they were built. The policy should encourage a small

proportion of good quality, individual, 21st century, architect

designed houses as well, so that this variety continues for future

generations.

33

Recent developments seem to concentrate on 'family' size homes

rather than 'starter' homes. Bungalows for easier living for retired are

disappearing.

37

There should be no insertion of flats or smaller dwellings in areas with

large houses & gardens.

66

Agree, although this cannot mean that all brand new styles should be

ignored. Ashtead is a great mix of styles and age of buildings and this

should not mean that we must always have buildings that are a

pastiche of styles

69

Although I do agree with this recommendation, please don't let it

mean that we end up pickled in aspic. Good modern design can look

beautiful too.

71

Sadly by trying to build 1, 2 and 3 bedroom properties, whether they

be houses or flats in areas where they do not and never have existed

before we will change the character of Ashtead and its various areas

forever and because of the earlier housing policies we will never be

able to keep to this policy.

83



86

Developments must not be restricted to what already exists. We

should not shy away from the new, different and dare I say

interesting!

87

Again whilst understanding the origins of and broad consistency of

this policy with existing local plan policies and built up area character

assessments, the policy would leave less room for debate with

developers and retain a neighbourly focus if it it were to read

"....developments must be visually integrated with their immediate

surroundings..." The word immediate is important to avoid

broadening the options for developers to design once and build

many wherever they want. The streetscene condition partly reduces

this risk but only on the frontage where in many cases the rear

streetscene may be far more important.

88

It is not acceptable to build a block of flats/apartments in an area of

houses, just because it may be possible to simulate the overall

outside design of the existing houses. A block of flats, (or enforced

smaller houses), will generate out of character; Developments, On

road parking, Traffic movements, Social mix, etc. Policy AS-H5 must

be rewritten to strengthen the maintaining of “all aspects of the

character of Ashtead” and not just built character. Additionally

Policies AS-H2 and AS-H3 are in complete contradiction with policy

AS-H5 as written in the NDP.

94

Visually integrated to me means different roof lines and angles, and

not windows overlooking neighbours.

96

I think this should come before the predecing housing proposals as it

overrides them.

98

Social housing in Bramley Way built in the post war period, is a good

example of visually integrated housing, blending well with privately

built homes. This was an era when the local council took seriously

its responsibility to house people on low/average earnings, who

could not afford to buy their own homes – a similar situation to

today.

99 It is understood that this will strengthen existing MVDC policies to

the benefit of Ashtead.

Comments: AS-H6

7

I particularly like this policy!

8

This is the minimum requirement that should be adopted for

residential developments. A shortfall in this provision can lead to all

sorts of discontent and disputes between neighbours.

11

I agree but it seems the Planning Inspector is at odds with the

numbers. In this respect I refer to the Churchill development on the

Leatherhead Road that was approved by MVDC in spite of objections

to inadequate parking, namely less than one space per flat, some of

two bedroom. The applicant put forward their developments

approved on appeal elsewhere for which therefore a planning

precedent had been established. Unfortunately the policy does not

stand up.

22

I'd make all new properties 2 spaces to reduce frustration and

congestion. Most people need two incomes and mobility to be able

to live in Ashtead

33

Parking is increasingly difficult in Ashtead! Even 1 bed flats can have

2 occupants each with a car. This is a vital consideration.

37

There is not enough off street parking provided by far. Everybody in

Surrey practically now has (& needs to have) their own car & even a 2

bed flat needs 2 parking spaces - otherwise there will be parking on

the pavements which looks a mess and is dangerous & inconvenient

for pedestrians.

40

1 & 2 bed flats require more than 1 space - what about

carers/visitors?

43

Adequate parking should be provided in all circumstances.

45

New research shows parking provision encourages car ownership &

use. You need to re-assess the parking provision policy.

47

It is essential on-street parking is restricted. Many garages, even in

new houses, are too small for modern cars. There should be a

minimum size for a garage.

48

It is highly likely that the occupants of 1/2 bed houses will own two

vehicles as are the occupants of 3/4 bedrooms. Visitor parking will be

used by residents as will any other space. You have to plan but this

must lead to car sprawl.

53

I think that more parking space is needed to avoid overspill onto

nearby streets etc

57

Only agree if there is also a set no of car spaces for visitors for all

properties & there will be no overspill into surrounding roads.

58

This will not work in the real world

63

Ideally, more spaces ought to allocated per unit.

66

This may not be enough as many couples have a car each although

may only live in a 1 or 2 bed property.

67

A reduction in these proposed spaces should not be allowed under

any circumstances.

69

I completely understand that space is precious and in short supply

and that we should all use our cars less. However, knowing the reality

of how we all live our lives today, I suspect this is a recipe to a lot of

on-road parking and more than a little aggravation.

71

Sadly another policy that I do not agree with. Firstly why should 1

and 2 bedroom flats be treated any differently to 1 and 2 bedroom

houses? If anything they should have more parking space available

to them because by default they are much more densely populated.

However I do like the policy that Bookham have suggested and I

think it would be much more suitable for Ashtead and I think we

should use this as our submission in the NDP for parking standards.

83



84

I think that the NDP could be more ambitious as to further provision

of of street parking to reduce the parking blight that is detrimental to

many residential streets in the village. For example enhanced parking

space at the station might be encouraged, perhaps with an

underground level below the existing area or extending under The

Woodfield.

86

I disagree only because I do not see what allowance has been made

for sheltered housing or retirement housing where the residents may

not need a space at all BUT they may have visitors. Also, parking for

contractors should be taking into consideration e.g. garden

maintenance contractors often have nowhere to park.

88

The car usage of residents of Flats (including Apartments) is no

different to car users living in Houses, particularly when there is little

public transport available as in Ashtead. Also as Flats are stacked

vertically it is therefore important to ensure the same parking

provision as Houses is established in a development. The policy

developed for the Bookham NDP is preferred when compared to the

one in the Ashtead NDP. The Ashtead NDP must adopt following

minimum standards for off-street parking applying to all new homes:

• One off-street parking space for bedsits and one bedroom homes

(Flats and Houses) • Two off-street parking spaces for two and three

bedroom homes (Flats and Houses) • Three off-street parking spaces

for four bedroom and larger homes (Flats and Houses) The

“Churchill” effect of the woefully under supply of parking must be

curtailed by an NDP policy.

90

s this intended to apply to all developments? Presumably it would

only apply to those with shared parking arrangements & where there

is no suitable on-street parking.

92

Any house should have a minimum of 2 off street parking places.

Houses with 4 bedrooms or more should have 3 spaces. This should

help the problems with visitor and workmen parking. Car sharing

should not be relevant since the next owners may not wish to car

share. DfT official forecasts are for a 40% increase in traffic/cars by

2040.

94

Encouragement should be given to undercover garage parking

preferably beneath new developments.

95

The 3 examples listed that could offer consideration of varying

aforesaid parking requirements will need to be resourced both for set

up and ongoing running. I suggest specific mention is made of the

need for such schemes to be credibly self resourcing or there is the

risk of the local authority having to fund this. What happens if these

schemes run out of money and residents are not able/ willing to

fund?

96

I think these figures are too low and that two should be required for

1-2 bed flats, three for 1-2 bed houses, and four + for 3+bedroomed

houses.

99

It is noted that there is no provision in this policy for storage of other

means of transport e.g. motor cycles, bicycles. It is also noted that

the SCC policy (7) refers to includes reference to electric vehicle

charging- something that is not mentioned here. Electric vehicles

may well provide a viable alternative for local journeys without

contribution to vehicle emission pollutions. Elsewhere the ANF NDP

proposals discuss (para 4.3.2) cycle infrastructure provision so it is

unclear why bicycle storage is not being promoted.

The SCC policy (7) standard is unlikely to provide an adequate volume

of parking for an area such as Ashtead. As discussed in the ANF NDP

consultation document parking is an acknowledged issue. The

number of households that have more than two vehicles is reported

as around 14% (8). Using the SCC guidance any new development

would have to be a 3 and more bed dwelling to qualify for sufficient

parking arrangements to be part of the design. This still leaves a

problem for visitors` vehicles.

It is noted that this policy echoes the SCC guidelines and care should

be taken to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic duplication i.e. “red tape”.

(7) n/k. (2012). Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance. Available:

https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/30041/Vehic

ular-and-Cycle-Parking-Guidance-January-2012.pdf. Last accessed

20ry 2016

(8) n/k. (updated 2014). Census: Household characteristics, Ashtead

Village Wards in Mole Valley. Available:

http://www.surreyi.gov.uk/(F(Rj1bX3qOjZCasCgjk7EAxeOFZPMvPntnvi

Q6ee4VHLbGOYPhAXW-

5A6O2GWLhaSq1OVR7slUyaw2VGDxD88a9bhqKlP6p0hhJnNSHJC04a

4VE9YPfyrGUkHVM4sQp8gBJLLF6Q2))/DrillDownProfile.aspx?pid=35

&rt=3. Last accessed 21st February 2016

Comments: AS-Ec1

5

I would be happy for this space to be converted to residential usage.

These shops eek out a living and if they didn’t exist would provide a

better level of demand in the 2 other shopping areas and provide

much needed residential development land in a highly accessible

area.

15

https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/30041/Vehicular-and-Cycle-Parking-Guidance-January-2012.pdf.%20Last%20accessed%2020ry%202016



I think this is vitally important. The shops are the lifeblood of this area

of Ashtead and bring real character and life to it. They should not be

allowed to be converted to housing. The shops are highly useful to

residents.

18

Strongly agree

28

The parade of shops on Barnett Wood Lane needs to be designated a

LSC and the paving and roads around it needs to be upgraded and

improved - particularly the paving. Cars should not be allowed to

park outside these shops, especially given the close proximity the

shops are to the infant school on BWLane. Makes walking very

difficult and not fair on those with visual impairments.

29

We cannot predict what changes of use might be and, surely, a

change of use is better than an empty, useless building? Also,

increase of floor space may be necessary to sustain a thriving

business/shopping area.

31

None of these shops should be used as offices

37

More parking off street is needed in this area & also at Craddocks

Parade.

39

The big problem in that area is the lack of a car park. Other than

concreting over the pond (joke!), the only alternatives are use of

green-belt land (unacceptable too) or the replacement of some

existing houses by a car park. Expensive, but what would be the

long-term economic benefit vs the (very large) initial cost? Probably

impractical, as it would be difficult to get the necessary contiguous

area.

43

This only makes sense if adequate short term parking is provided and

enforced. These shops are cursed currently by this lack.

45

This will increase the traffic and parking problems by Barnett Wood

School.

59

I feel that all changes of use and proposals to increase floorspace

should be considered on an individual basis and that we should not

just ban them outright.

64

This policy is important so as to allow shop owners/tenants to raise

the profile of these shops

69

Good idea. This is the nearest shopping area to a large number of

homes, and includes our only post office in lower Ashtead.

72

These shops are an important asset for this part of Ashtead. They

include the only Post Office in the Woodfield/Ashtead Common area,

a particularly important facility.

74

The big difficulty here is parking.

84

The NDP could also indicate a desire that this area should have a

facelift or improvement including for example a parking lay-by and

improvements to the shop frontage area to give it a better quality

surface and more consistent look.

86

The Street in Ashtead is no longer an appealing place to shop. There

is far too much heavy traffic. Residents may prefer to shop or have a

coffee on Craddocks and also Barnett Wood Lane rather than The

Street so in my opinion Barnett Wood Lane parade should be allowed

to grow organically.

95

How about reducing the pavement area at Barnet Wood Lane for

parking to make the flow of traffic along the road far safer. 1-2

metres would work and provide sufficient safe pavement space for

pedestrians. Not sure what pavement frontage ownership by shops

could restrict such consideration. But it would benefit all shops as it

would make the area more welcoming

99

Support this proposal but would note that the question refers to the

“map at Figure 12”, whereas the correct reference should be to the

“map at Figure 11”.

Comments: AS-Ec2

5

How can we be a village without a pub!

15

I am not convinced that the existence of 2 pubs (Leg of Mutton and

Brewery) in very chose proximity should be inviolable. It may be that

demolition of the Brewery would allow improvements to be made to a

dangerous junction.

9

The Brewery Inn is an obstacle to safe improvements of the junction of

Woodfield Lane and The Street and should be demolished providing

more public parking for the shops and the APMH and allowing traffic

lights on the resulting cross-shaped junction.

19

Both are strongly community driven

28

More needs to be done to make each of them more child friendly and

therefore accessible by the whole community they are seeking to serve.

33

Loss of these amenities would mean travelling to Epsom or Dorking or

Leatherhead.

37

The pubs should be kept but if possible enhanced with modern dining

facilities.

45

We need pubs as meeting places. Again [as said re AS-H1] this is poorly

worded.

58

They are not especially nice places to visit apart from the "Leg" We need

to keep a bank in the Street and develop Tesco site

64

The Leg and Woodman should raise their game to justify this status.

69

I'm not much of a pub-goer myself but it would be a terrible shame if

there were no pubs in the area for people to go to.

76

Also I think that any proposals to reduce the car parking space around

any of these three Public Houses should be resisted.

95

The loss of one or more these public houses could arise in the future

from business considerations - i.e. Change in public's habits leading to

reduced custom. I would suggest policy consideration of retention of the

buildings ideally as some form of licensed activities. Or failing that

retention of building for other commercial uses eg spread eagle in

Epsom ?

99

This policy risks delivering a situation where a site is not redeveloped

following cessation of current use. Any business at these sites needs to

be successful- if customers do not support the business it will cease in

the same way as retail banking has left the village. If a business chooses

to withdraw from the one of sites and there is no other interest in

provision of a public house, the site will become unused (and possible

derelict) as this policy potentially prevents any change of use.

Suggest the policy is revised to support the provision of public houses at

the existing locations, recognising their value as assets, but

acknowledging that a situation might arise where there is a need for an

alternative community facility at that site.

This policy requires review and representation.

Comments: Ec3

5

Whilst I am happy with limiting the size of the store I don’t have a view

on comparison goods. and so long as the parking and access is good it

should boost the Street.

7

A totally different planning application could be made- which we might

welcome, but the policy will prevent it. It just makes no sense. Planning

applications should be consider one by one on their merits. Not

addressed in a NDP.

8

This is essential to encourage people to use as many of the shops in The

Street as possible

9

If the retail store cannot provide its own parking spaces within its own

boundaries (i.e. not relying on using the APMH spaces) then it should

only be permitted in conjunction with demolition of The Brewery Inn (see

previous question) and that releasing more public parking spaces.

11

You are quoting the conditions attached to the existing planning

application submitted by Tesco and approved. Prior to expiry last

November Tesco undertook sufficient work to ensure a renewal

application was not required, at the same time being in a position to sell

the site with planning approval. It was a pity there were so many

unjustified objections to earlier applications otherwise the store would

now be up and running. A lesson to be learnt for the future.

12

In saying Yes, I am assuming that the Sales/Floor areas quoted are those

permitted in the final agreed Tesco application. Not larger - but not

smaller either so that the planning battle doesn't have to be fought

again.

17

I would rather that this whole site be devoted to housing. A block of 1 or

2 bedroom flats?

18

I do not agree. I I feel a convenience store is not required and will

negatively affect the character of the street and possibly the sales of the

current shops there but also in craddocks and Barnet wood. the current

convenience store serves sufficient to encourage my increased footfall to

the street. If this is agreed I agree that the entrance should only be

through the street only and I agreeee with the net sales area suggestion.

21

This is unrealistic. No retail outlet will want to be restricted in its sale of

eg, bread and meat. If the 'Co-op' were to be encouraged to move to the

new site, its present premise might be useful for small homes. The

present Street buildings are a ramshackle lot and not very attractive

22

I am against shopping facilities that compete with small traders already

in Ashtead

28

The land is already an eye sore and has stood empty since I moved to

Ashtead over 8 years ago. Stop being so prescriptive please. This is why

The Street is dying and nobody under 60 actually shops there!!

29

I think this is too restrictive. Elderly and disabled customers and those

with young children would benefit from access directly from the carpark.

33

This site has been empty far too long. A different store to Tesco would

be very welcme eg Sainsbury Local / Waitrose / M&S Food Store.

37

Not a SECOND Tesco - preferably Waitrose!

40

As far as it goes. There is still the problem of customer and delivery car

parking!

43

The problems this would cause are well known - excessive pressure on

parking - the Woodfield Lane/Street junction would be completely

inadequate to cope with passing traffic trying to access the store. Use

the space for housing.

45

This question confused everybody on this question - what does 682 sqm

look like??!

47

Does this mean only 10% of the sales area can be devoted to vegetables,

groceries, meat, flowers all of which can be bought in the village. What

is the other 90%, drink?

51

I believe that there s already a Tesco on Woodfield lane and a coop on

the street. Why do we need more convenience stores? Would it not be

more pertinent to encourage a selection of smaller retail spaces to entice

independent shops - much more in keeping with the character of

Ahstead's The Street. There a several markets that are not provided by

Ashtead which would improve the shopping experience for the residents.

For example, there are no decent clothes (of an affordable nature) and

no footwear retailers, certainly not for children, which you state is a

growing population of those moving to the area. This means we need to

travel to find these and as such end up doing the rest of the shopping

elsewhere. A further convenience store would just not cut it, would over

flood the market. There are too many estate agents on the street.

59

I feel that we should stick with the original planning proposals that were

agreed for Tesco unless the new developer proposes something different

i.e. 750 sqm of net sales area, 1500 Gross floor area with access from the

car park. I am not sure what the 10% of the Net Sales Area should be for

the sale of comparison goods means.

61

The development should also include some accommodation.

66

This should also include a minimum number of dwellings so that it is a

mixed development not just retail

67

I think an exit from the store to the car park should be allowed. This

development should include some accommodation.

69

I would really like to be able to do my weekly shop in Ashtead, rather

than going to Leatherhead as I do now. I am also sure that a larger food

store would bring more trade to the rest of The Street.

72

Agree in principle with desire to develop this site in a way which

supports existing shops in The Street however can not comment on the

detail of this policy - the square metres and area for the "sale of

comparison goods". What are "comparison goods"?

76

Also, since the establishment of such a retail store (with which I agree)

would be likely to increase the need for car parking nearby, I think

consideration should be given to the possibility of adding either under-

floor or overhead car parking facilities to the building.

83



86

Why on earth would a convenient entrance from the back car park not

be allowed? The policy even describes it as a "convenience retail store"

so please make it actually convenient. There is rarely parking on The

Street and the car park at the back is under-utilised. If we allow business

premises on The Street lets try and help them succeed.

88

Due to the loss of retail banking in Ashtead, this development should

have a mandatory ATM facility included.

92

The interlink with parking has not been fully thought through. We do

want more footfall in The Street. A later policy encourages more signing

to the car parks – excellent. But even if the new store is basket only the

passageway between the cleaners and the electrical shop is just

insufficient. It is probably difficult if not impossible to improve that.

Why not insist that a new passageway is built at the side of the new

store going straight form the car park to The Street. Customers may turn

straight into the store, but they will also have an opportunity to visit

other shops.

94

If no company wished to develop this site for retail, I feel that

homes/offices should be agreed (instead of the unsightly mess there for

so long in the village centre).

95

I would suggest a degree of flexibility on metrics. It may deter a business

that would be highly attractive to ashtead

96

Also propose that at least one ATM machine be provided in the design.

98

Given the limited availability of land in Ashtead, would it not be better to

build housing here, subject to the spacing limits outlined above? This

would also protect the other retailers in the Street from unnecessary

competition and preserve the character of the Street.

99

The apparently existing MVDC planning permission includes provision of

additional parking spaces. The provision of additional parking,

particularly in view of comments elsewhere in this consultation

documents, should be reflected here. The SCC guidance indicates that 9

parking spaces should be provided for the 9 flats and in the region of 27

parking spaces for users of any store(7). Provision should also be made

for bicycle parking.

Any development at the site should complement the surrounding area,

not attract a large volume of vehicles in the same way as the Tesco store

in Craddocks Parade. This produces congestion with resulting delays

and on occasion vehicles blocking the road waiting for parking space to

become available.

Any store may well attract business from beyond the Ashtead NDP area

and the infrastructure (including parking) should support the incoming

business to Ashtead.

This policy should be revisited to include at least the points above and

then re-consulted on.

Comments: AS-En1

5

We need bigger schools as there are not enough spaces. this is too

sweeping a generalisation... the concept of infants schools is

ridiculous... St G and BWI should both become primary schools which

will mean some dev't on their playing fields.

9

There should be no reduction in the total school playing field land within

Ashtead

11

Realistically there is no land available in Ashtead for alternative sites. If

they come on to the market the land would be used for housing.

15

This is extremely important.

18

I agree with the first two sentences. Not the third. The playing fields

should not be distanced from the school. Schools should be able to

provide this space for access at break and lunch times and not just for

sports. It is detrimental to the physical and mental health of children for

these spaces to be reduced and has long term effects into adulthood as

it develops poor knowledge and skills and expectations about the use of

outdoor space,activity and nature. Compromising this therefore

therefore major potential detrimental effects on health and wellbeing

and also therefore the long term economy of the nation and for society.

19

Ashtead Schools should have playing fields on or adjacent to their site. If

not this would only serve to increase traffic around the playing field sites.

32

Any reduction in existing school playing fields should be avoided at ALL

costs.

33

Schools should not be allowed to sell off land for development!

47

It is most important sports facilities are preserved.

51

However, I have concerns that this will ultimately stifle any expansion

and result in the local children not being able to attend a good local

school. As an educational advisor for two other boroughs I can see ways

around this. I work for inner city LAs and can see how this can e done

sensitively. I would love to be part of the discussions around

school/playing field sustainability in the long term of this project.

69

Absolutely right.

86

This is a tricky one as we will need the schools to expand and there may

not be the space apart from the playing fields. However, having to move

children around to do sports offsite is counterproductive and logistically

challenging especially when children are younger. It is such a waste of

curriculum time and school resources apart from anything else.

Buildings may need to go up - unpalatable of course but sensible.

94

How much is the Recreation Ground used by local schools?

98

There seems to be masses of green space in Ashtead, some of which, if

necessary could be made available for additional playing fields, given

that, as you state ‘outdoor sports pitches are already acceptable in the

Green Belt in principle, depending on design issues.’ I don’t know if

independent schools make their playing fields available, when free, to

other schools and the community, but that would make sense.

99

It is noted that the ANF NDP consultation document has omitted to

mention St Giles` school and Barnett Wood Playing fields that are used

by St John`s school. These should be included for completeness.

Comments: AS-En2

7

I would like to see more playing fields in Ashtead for organised games. I

understand we're short of pitches of most kind. And I'd like to explore

how the Pony field might be utilised as it's a valuable flat land which is

currently only used by Pony's.

8

This will continue and add to the "Village Feel" of Ashtead

9

The grass, trees and hedgerows are significant parts of Ashtead's

pleasant character

21

But!... I have just reminded MVDC of their responsibility to maintain

footpaths' safety (leaf clearance and surface condition is generally poor.

If you wish people to walk you must also enforce the 'creeping hedge

syndrome' which seems to afflict so many residents!

28

We should be planting more trees and bushes and not removing them.

Craddock's Road would benefit hugely from further tree planting to

make it prettier.

31

But they must be maintained

33

Friends often comment on the beauty of Ashtead - the tree lined roads

soften developments and attract wildlife adding to the amenities of the

area.

36

It's amazing how these verges are being damaged by vehicles parking on

them even though the council does its best to stop it with posts.

40

Recent anti-open developments: - house in Woodfield Lane has been

allowed to build high fence to front of property - ditto Greville Park

Road

42

Stop parking on verges.

51

However, I have concerns that as a homeowner I will not be able to rid

any problem hedges such as a destructive Ivy hedge I have inherited

from my property and as such it will cause structural damage to the

property

84

It is essential to retain green space of all sorts as this is integral to the

character of Ashtead.

94

Retains MANY trees and MOST hedges would describe my views. A24 is

poorly maintained - the pathway is half the width previously. Greville

side, bushes cut back low down and out of control higher up.

98

Although some flexibility should surely be possible within reason e.g. if

one tree is affecting development proposals in one area.

99

This policy may impact on or be impacted by Policy AS-Inf2: Pedestrian

Access. Protecting the areas described in this (AS-En2) policy may well

prevent any boundary adjustment. This policy is considered the more

important policy and should take precedent.

Comments: As-En3

5

Design needs to be good and of high quality but the span house on the

Marld (sp?) are excellent if alternative to the conservation area nearby.

focus should be on quality and longevity not replication. embrace good

design not poor quality copycats.

9

Two storey buildings should not be permitted in those areas that are

currently all or largely bungalows. Our close has had its pleasant

character significantly reduced by dominating two storey buildings

allowed in a neighbouring back garden development.

30

We think that there is a potential conflict between this policy and

continuing to have a variety of building styles reflecting the era in which

they were built. The policy should encourage a small proportion of good

quality, individual, 21st century, architect designed houses as well, so

that this variety continues for future generations.

48

This will provide the parking space that is lacking in AS-H6.

49

I agree strongly with this.

67

I believe gardens are very important.

69

I strongly agree.

71

Yet again we are saying that we want to retain the character of Ashtead

but our housing policy goes against this.

83



86

Caveat - lets not only restrict to what is "appropriate" architecture.

87

My sense is that the first sentence of this policy is loosely drafted and

presents a risk of gradual deterioration in character. "..should take

account of the character of the surrounding area" leaves far too much

room for non-innovative design by developers whilst it could be argued

that a larger development is defined as one that is simply larger than the

buildin on an existing site - in which case virtually every infill

development in Ashtead would be characterised as a larger development

!! If I were a developer I would see this particular policy as offering

hitherto unavailable flexibility to "design one and build many wherever I

want".

88

Policy AS-En3 must be rewritten to strengthen the maintaining of “all the

current aspects of the character of Ashtead”. The word “should” must

be replaced with the word “must” in the policy wording, otherwise

everything is optional. Policies AS-H2 and AS-H3 are in complete

contradiction with policy AS-En3.

92

Careful about the trees. They are nice but need controlling which does

not always happen. A few less would be no harm.

96

I would, however, replace "character of the surrounding area" phrase by

in the opening sentence to "existing character of the area".

99

The second part of this policy seems to suggest that by developments

including the amenities described (gardens etc.) the policy could be met

by retaining existing areas that meet the requirement. This should be

made clear. This is not fully explained in the discussion in paragraph

4.4.3 of the ANF NDP consultation document.

Comments: AS-Inf1

11

Sounds good BUT

18

Yes subject to the ability to retain sports and green space accessible to

the primary care facilities see comment on sports field provision

22

But, private provision only if public options are legally exhausted.

Ashtead needs to become more not less privileged

31

They must have a car park

33

There are still only 2 doctors surgeries in Ashtead yet the population has

increased dramatically in the 35 years I have lived here.

37

We agree so long as the expanded provision is close to existing primary

care provision.

42

Central care area with plenty of parking. eg use of Esso site.

45

I agree with the proposal to expand primary care but automatic

acceptance of all private medical services will create problems in the

future.

46

Agree with change of use of commercial but not residential properties.

51

I feel it should be promoted and supported regardless of look. The fact

remains Ashtead is a growing population. And even though the increase

is small at the moment, there are not enough facilities for existing

residents. I myself couldn't find a surgery taking NHS patients when I

moved in last May, I am still with my previous surgery in Epsom as a

result. I do however, agree that they should be accesible and within

perhaps brownfield sites or derelict existing building locations around

the residential areas.

52

Please remember parking spaces

71

Retaining character once again that our housing policies go against.

95

Add - sufficient patient parking - as well as part of any considerations

98

Given the limited availability of land for housing and the fact that

Ashtead is not meeting its target in this area, I am not in favour of

permitting change of use of residential premises to support primary care

provision and certainly not for private medical services.

99

The implementation of this policy needs to take into account of where the demand is arising from and deciding what “local demand” means. A risk here is Ashtead becomes a world class Centre of excellence for health and social care, but ceases to exist as a community.

Comments: AS-Inf2

8

This is crucial for pedestrian safety and should have been considered in

many existing developments!

9

This should include grass verges where at all possible and should have

entirely off-road parking provisions.

22

Note, wood field lane currently does not comply with Accessibility needs

28

Barnett Wood Lane needs to be improved first!! it is a major school

route.

37

It is important that there should be no parking on the pavements & that

sufficient off street parking is provided as well.

39

Usually very difficult - eg Rectory / Dene Road.

44

Also consider speed restrictions i.e. 20mph in Lanes area. This would be

cheaper than footpaths & would retain the appearance.

51

But it would be a shame if the 'old' listed character of the village were

diminished because of this.

71

There are a lot of areas in Ashtead that do not have footpaths with no

prospect of there ever being one because of the width of the road and

to add just add a short length of footpath outside a new development

would be very out of keeping with the area.

72

Maintain or improve existing pedestrian access including retaining the

Green Lane railway foot crossing.

76

Also I think this policy is particularly important in those existing roads

which are narrow and at present have sections with no pedestrian

footpaths and trees and bushes immediately border the road.

82

Yes, very important to enhance pedestrian access capabilities.

84

I would put much emphasis on the need for such footpath provision to

be in keeping with the area. In The Lanes for example, footpaths are

unlikely to be in keeping. I also think the NDP should be more

aspirational in its ambition to improve both pedestrian linking footpaths

and cycle routes.

86

Fewer and fewer people walk - that is a fact. Why would we demand

that people go to the expense and inconvenience is providing for the

above policy.

95

Why only 'encourage ' make it a condition

99

This policy impacts on Policy AS-En2: Amenity Space as if implemented

will on occasion require removal of hedges e.g. northern end of Skinners

Lane to allow the improvement to pedestrian footpaths to be made.

Para 4.5.2 of the ANF NDP consultation document uses the words “many

narrow roads”. Reference to the supporting document finds nine roads

are mentioned specifically. A few more can be considered to require this

sort of improvement. Even with those added the word “many” is not

correct; the words “There are a number of narrow roads” would be

considered adequate.

This policy requires redrafting and representing.

Comments: AS-Inf3

7

In section 4.5.3 was the school City of London missed - who also has

busy traffic at drop off/ pick up times? In section 4.6 isn't the Shell

Petrol Station a valued community asset. If that were to close for

housing, the village would have no petrol station. Could it be added?

Can't remember the rules for adding things privately owned.

45

The thrust of this is good but pre-approval of policies will backfire - keep

Part 1, scrap Part 2.

90

In the first line, the word 'communities' should I think read 'community'.

98

Yes - but expansion of existing facilities should not be at the expense of

new affordable housing.

99

Consideration should be made in adding the Ashtead Village Club (9) to

the list supplied in the consultation document at paragraph 4.6. Also

omitted is that there is public parking available on a pay for use basis at

The Brewery Inn- this should also be included.

(9) n/a. (n/k). n/a. Available: http://www.ashteadvc.co.uk/. Last accessed

20th February 2016

Comments: AS-Inf4

6

There is a danger that additional pedestrian crossings on through routes

will increase congestion at peak times.

9

Ashtead's narrower lanes do not have room for pavements so some

20MPH speed limits should be considered to make them safer for

pedestrians.

11

I am aware of the pressure to provide a pedestrian crossing on the A24

near the junctions of farm Lane and Bramley Way.. When you say "over" I

assume you mean at ground level otherwise I would be totally against a

bridge. However I am concerned about any crossing on grounds of road

safety unless the A24 has a 20 mph speed limit.

18

Additionally commission routes between the wells estate and ashtead.

Connections between ashtead and the wells is increasing either the

increased primary provision at primary schools in ashtead which

increases the use of ashtead facilities and transport routes to and from

wells. To avoid increased road traffic attention needs to be given to

speed limit and gates at lady Margaret rail crossing to support greener

transport uptake. This will also reduce congestion and parking.

19

Particularly pedestrian crossing with island on busy a24 where traffic is

far too fast and way over 40 mph. Also would like to see speed bump

going into/out of village by the marld/Howard memorial. With school

and nursery on a24, lots of families and children crossing, the traffic is far

too fast

21

I support some of these proposals but by no means all of them; these

should all have their own questionnaire format

22

Support traffic calming measures for safety reasons for the St Stephend

Avenue 'racetrack'

23

We have cycle routes in Barney Wood Lane and Epsom Road. The only

problem is that the majority of cyclists still cycle on the roads. Seems an

awful waste of money to have provided cycle routes that cyclists ignore.

29

I would also like to see a pedestrian crossing on Ottways Lane near the

top of Agates Lane

31

These should have been set out at separate items Based on the last

cycle path which is hardly used Not convinced additional cycle paths

would be money well spent The pedestrian crossings need to be

rethought, put in new one as stated take out crossing by Post Office put

traffic lights with pedestrian crossing at top of woodfield Lane (blind

junction) remove crossing by Shell garage leave last one near Otways

Lane

32

How about toilet facilities near the children's playground area. This

would stop children using the hedge adjacent to the tennis courts!! This

would be much more use than at the Old Pavilion.

33

With the exception of safe cycling routes. The recent Ashtead-

Leatherhead route is not much used!

35

A public toilet near the Youth Centre would probably be used more than

a toilet at the other end of the Playing Field.

38

Water supplies should be considered. We suffer low water pressure

particularly early morning, mainly, since the Parsons Mead development.

Sutton & E. Surrey Water at last accept there is a problem. This needs to

be addressed.

43

Cycle lanes will only work if they are properly designed. The

Leatherhead-Ashtead route is a perfect example of how NOT to do it. If

cyclists are forced to stop every few yards they won't use it. Witness that

virtually none of the cyclists who use the road use the cycle route.

44

[Comment on: toilet facilities ..... near the Youth Centre] would be

preferable. [Comment on: Improvements to pedestrian access ......] - as

previously noted - consider speed restrictions. [Comment on safe

cycling routes] - Encourage cyclists to use them.

45

Generally approve but the crossing [on the A24] could be in an

unsighted area on a 40mph road and INCREASE hazards not decrease

them.

46

Do not agree with this proposal [projects to promote and improve

cycling routes, etc.], as the new cycle route on the A24 is hardly used.

Cyclists choose to cycle on the road rather than use the cycle path, so it

would appear to be a complete waste of money.

51

I do and don't agree with this. I think it may have been most beneficial to

ask for comments on each of the separate proposals within this question.

I personally believe the CIL should be spent on increasing the school

places, sewage and energy supplies in the area. With regard to public

toilets, this is really out of date as a need. Towns nationwide are actually

closing and demolishing their public toilets as they have been proven to

encourage increases in Anti-Social Behaviour, underage drinking, drug

dealing and sexual offence. I am sure that this is something that the

village and local community do not want on their door step. With a

decreasing police presence and lack of maintenance from SCC and

MVDC I feel this would be a waste of the CIL when school places are at a

premium for local children.

Regarding the real time bus information, this is not necessary, however,

and increase in public transport routes is needed.

As long as public is consulted on the road and pavement improvements

this will be ok.

Agreed that cycling routes need to be improved, cyclists really do add to

the congestion in this busy town, especially on narrow side roads.

Pedestrian crossing? Do we not have too many of these along the A24

already, slowing flow and adding to congestion times.

Signage - not sure in the grand scheme of things if this is the best use

of the CIL when there are other more pressing pressures on sustainability

of the village and lifestyles for residents.

53

Yes, but I do not see the need for a pedestrian crossing at the Farm

Lane/ Bramley Way part of the A24

54

Real time passenger information is a significant positive development.

Surrey County Council needs to drive the success of the scheme.

57

Agree with all except for A24 crossing. There is no evidence that this is a

PRIORITY, it may be "a nice to have" for a limited no of people but this

has to be offset against another set of traffic lights on a busy main road

& the air pollution caused by stopping & starting of vehicles, particularly

lorries & buses.

59

I agree with most of the proposals but I do not feel that a pedestrian

crossing at Farm Lane and Bramley Way are needed since there are

islands in the road to make crossing the road easy. I do not agree with

spending vast amounts on cycling lanes which are normally ignored by

cyclists or to the narrowing of roads for cars which makes congestion

worse.

62

An island crossing adjacent to the alley way near the A24 and Greville

School which leads to Berry Meade Close and Stonny Croft could be

considered.

64

I oppose paved footpaths on our narrow lanes otherwise I agree

especially with the crossing for A24 near Bramley Way

67

I would like to see further improvement in bus services, if possible going

nearer schools and the railway station.

69

I think all these ideas are great, particularly the idea of better cycling

links, safer crossings over the A24 and some public loos!

71

However I cannot see why we are not asking for real time bus

information on both sides of The Street. Surely people travel both ways

towards Guildford and also towards Epsom from the bus stop in The

Street and would welcome information as to how many hours they may

need to wait for the next bus on both sides of the road. With the new

proposals for Leatherhead I would imagine that more people will want to

take the bus to Leatherhead and we should be thinking forward towards

this.

74

Re footpaths - presumably people have in mind such roads as Agates

and Harriott Lanes. Although dangerous for pedestrians, we cannot see

that footpaths along these roads would be practicable. All other

suggestions are good.

77

The council has spent thousands on a so called cycleway between

Ashtead and Leatherhead, but nobody uses it and people continue to

cycle on whatever pedestrian footpath is convenient to them

82

I would add: "Resist attempts by Network Rail to close or adversely alter

any of the pedestrian rail crossings that presently exist", as these,

particularly that at Green Lane, are under threat by the Health & Safety

Executive but they provide essential links for the local communities.

84

I suggest that the NDP should be more specific as to the cycle routes

and enhanced pedestrian routes that are required, so that future

developments can be assessed relative to these specifications.

87

This is an excellent policy addition - whilst so much of the focus is on

housing style and character this policy demonstrates the true value of a

Neighbourhood Development Plan as it speaks clearly to infrastructure

issues (such as pedestrian and cyclist safety) that dominate concerns of

Ashtead residents.

89

i feel very strongly that there needs to be a crossing over the A24 near

Bramley way. I walk my two children to and from school and have to

cross this road which is quite frankly dangerous. I have a scooter and

pushchair as well. the speed limit should also be slowed to 30 mph along

this part of A24. the greville is expanding and we now have the burrow

so there are more and more children crossing this very busy road.

93

My preferred location for the much needed pedestrian crossing is

opposite the pathway from the A24 to Stonnycroft and the entrance to

Ashtead Park. The speed limit at this point needs to be reduced to 30

mph.

94

Re pedestrian crossing with traffic lights for A24. Traffic should be

30mph and any crossing should be near Bramley Way and should

include extension of of pathway beside bus stop as no space for a group

of children to wait or reach in safety.

95

With safe cycling proposal include consideration of safety for

pedestrians. Consider development of concept of separation of vehicles

and cycles to separation of cycle ways and pedestrians in high volume

locations. Also enhance signage of existing cycleways to encourage more

usage

98

In particular I would support provision of a pedestrian crossing over the

A24 at or near the junction of Farm Lane and Bramley Way. You take

your life on your hands trying to cross the A24 to access Ashtead Park.

Another use of the CIL could be the provision of a bus service to Ashtead

station, which might help alleviate the problem of commuter parking in

residential streets close to the station.

99

Responded in support with the following negatives:

-Real time bus passenger information- why would this not be on both

sides of The Street: this suggestion is made in view of the variety of

destinations buses travelling away from Epsom serve. Which authority is

responsible for this provision and can CIL receipts be used for this

purpose?

-Safe cycling routes, provision of A24 pedestrian crossings and signage

improvements- are these a Surrey County Council highways

responsibility? If so can CIL receipts be directed towards this proposal?

ANF needs to ensure that they, through this plan, are attempting to

influence the correct local authority when proposing infrastructure

changes.

Comments on NDP Overall

2

There should be more focus on the higher end of the housing market,

similar to the large, high quality houses built in the High Warren

development.

5

In the round an excellent piece of work. I commend the team for their

efforts and welcome discussion on my comments. neighbourhood

committee work is essential and whilst i dont have time to commit

myself i applaude those who do. keep up the good work.

6

Developers must not be allowed to ignore conditions attached to

planning permission because enforcement is too difficult.

7

Lots of hard work and sweat. Highlights are parking and green space

protection. Lowlights are the contradictions of housing policies and

vision statement. Is there any room at this stage to consider use of land

to south for exercise?

9

This is a very valuable contribution to Ashtead's future and I congratulate

those who have made time for and the effort to prepare this plan.

11

I am against any incursion of development into the Green Belt.

12

A thorough piece of work worthy of support.

17

A very well thought through document, my compliments go to the

group that constructed it.

18

Please give attention to boundary issues withe the wells estate as there is

increased link between ashtead community and the wells as the social

centre closes on the wells and children attend schools and other facilities

in Ashtead

21

Very impressed but not surprised; no harm in aspiring to 'paradise' but

may be unreachable.

22

I'd have liked an indication at the start of the survey about the number

of questions and whether I would be able to access an e copy of my

answers

27

I would say that the A24 continues to be a major problem since the cycle

lane was built and the level of traffic queuing remains very high in the

rush hour.

30 Congratulations and thanks to everyone involved.

32

A great effort.

33

Very detailed plan well thought out.

35

Bus services in the area need improvement but local people need to be

persuaded to leave their cars at home. The increasing number of older

people in the area could be stranded if they are no longer fit enough to

drive and have few bus services available. This makes it important to

retain the existing shopping facilities.

36

You have collectively done a lot of work on this, congratulations and

thanks.

37

1) Keep all development out of the Green Belt & do not alter Green Belt

boundaries. 2) Demand that Surrey CC improve/upgrade road surfaces

particularly on Rookery Hill.

38

Parking in Ashtead is terrible, People come in from outside areas

because it is cheaper to travel from Ashtead, surely a multistorey car

park or prices for areas at lower cost to discourage on street parking.

39

Thank you all those who gave up their time to this.

40

Retaining character of Ashtead: 1) Commuter parking is spoiling the

character. Many roads (Culverhay, Overdale, Broadhurst, Cray Avenue,

Woodfield, Woodfield Close, Meadow Road, part of Links Road, etc.)

suffer from this on a daily basis. 2) After April, Ashtead will not have a

bank. Not everyone has a computer to bank online, so will need to

travel to Epsom/Leatherhead (using a car?). Only 2 ATMs (when they're

working).

41

An excellent presentation.

44

Thank you to those involved for their efforts in preparation &

communication.

45

With an ageing population and increasing traffic congestion, thought

needs to be given to better public transport systems accessible to the

elderly.

47

1. There has obviously been a lot of time and effort gone into the plan,

which is much appreciated by my wife and I. 2. We realise that

everything is likely to change if Britain remains in Europe and the

population continues to increase by millions as is happening at present.

3. Paving over of front gardens by non-permeable surfaces should be

discouraged to avoid surface flooding.

48

I have learnt a great deal about Ashtead from reading your NDP. May I

congratulate you on its production.

51

Yes plenty but the form won't let me say them I will be emailing them

today on a word attachment

53

Brilliant job done by the team. Congratulations and thank you for all the

hard work. Much appreciated. This is a good plan.

57

Thanks to all involved for their hard work.

58

The priority, in my opinion, is to get the Tesco site developed. We've put

up with that eyesore too long. The Street will become more downgraded

as we will have no banks after April

59

Schools in Ashtead, particularly the Greville Primary school with no

consideration for parking for parents cars. Just restricting parking in the

region of the school just moves the cars elsewhere and makes it difficult

for local residents. There should be temporary parking for parents.

61

Transport related issues do not seem to have been addressed as a

priority _ they have the potential to seriously impact other areas of

community importance.

62

I agree with more footpaths, as was commented on. some roads in

Ashtead don't have paths and makes walking dangerous ie Farm Lane.

Many more people would walk to Epsom Downs if there was safe paths

for example.

65

You seem to have devised an excellent plan - I hope it goes through.

66

A great start - will be good to see this plan being applied and the results

seen on the ground over the coming years

67

Generally I think it is good.

68

Although DFH is new to the area, we both believe that the Draft NDP, as

proposed, will enhance the Ashtead area significantly.

69

I think this is a very well thought out and researched document, which I

am happy to support. Thank you to everyone who prepared it for their

hard work.

71

There is a word limit on each of the comment boxes and if you go over

this limit you can carry on typing but you are unable to move on to the

next question because you get an error.

72

A very good document - thank you to all who have contributed.

75

Good work!

76

In recent years increases in the number of trains using the railway

through Ashtead, and increases in the number of residents living on the

'blind' side of the railway, have substantially increased the road traffic

congestion on both sides of the railway crossing. Therefore I think an

alternative way should be found, and implemented, for cars to cross the

railway without other than via a level-crossing. Consideration could

perhaps be given to the following alternatives: a) The installation of a

road bridge near the Ashtead railway station; b) The construction of a

road connection to the Wells area, which already has a road bridge

across the railway.

82

None but to congratulate and thank those who put it together.

83



84

The NDP makes no comment on the status of the various sites that were

put forward for possible development in the Green Belt Review. It also

does not indicate what might happen if it turns out to be incompatible

with the new MV Local Plan when it is developed in 2018 or later.

86

In completing this survey I feel that it is rather biased towards the ageing

Ashtead population i.e. the over 65s. I appreciate that it is an incredibly

difficult process however and definitely appreciate the time and effort

that will have gone in to preparing the NDP - thank you to all those

involved. In addition to the policies covered and as this is such a long

term plan, I would have liked to have seen more focus on the younger

generations requirements and policies that would deal with issues like

parking and traffic management in a more detailed way.

87

Except in perhaps a couple of areas mentioned this draft NDP is a

testament to the fantastic effort and care taken by those developing it.

88

The aspirations of many living in Ashtead and those who wish to move

to Ashtead because of what it is today – will be destroyed by this current

NDP proposal. Ashtead going forward under this proposed NDP will

evolve to nothing more than a typical rundown suburb of a major city,

with associated problems. A Policy in the NDP to cease the loss of

existing 1/2/3 bedroom homes by building of extensions would keep the

housing needed for downsizing and low paid families available in the

village, without resorting to forcing home owners with large gardens to

accept out of character homes, etc. The NDP must include a policy to

stop the spread of Retirement Homes/Blocks particularly when the

Character of Ashtead is visibly degraded, e.g. along Leatherhead

Road/A24 which is at risk of being renamed “Death Valley”. Similarly a

NDP policy to stop highly visible Telecommunication Masts destroying

the Character of Ashtead must be considered. Bookham Policy BKH2:

Infill and garden development. Infill and garden development must

respect its context and the green and open character of its surroundings

and reflect the prevailing character of the immediate locality. In

particular: • Gaps, between new or extended buildings and each side

boundary, should be a minimum of 1 metre or, if gaps in the locality are

generally larger, should reflect the existing gaps. Courtyard and terraced

development will, however, be permitted where they are consistent with

the character of the immediate area. • Provision must be made for the

convenient and accessible storage of wheelie bins and cycles. • The

height of new homes should be comparable to those in the locality or,

where adjacent heights themselves vary, the height of the new homes

should not dominate their surroundings. Garden developments will need

to demonstrate that the proposals will not cause unacceptable

overlooking of neighbouring properties or be overbearing. • In

developments where a new access road is to be constructed it must be

capable of allowing service and emergency vehicle access to all

buildings, with provision of a footway. Access arrangements should not

be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring homes or to the

character of the area.

90

An excellent piece of work.

91

It is clear that much hard work has gone into formulating this document

and I commend those involved for their efforts.

92

A lot of good work well done.

93

I am very happy for the plan as drafted to go forward to the next stage

96

It has been a tremendous acheivement! Also, make clear that Ashtead is

opposed to any change in the Green Belt ariubd Ashtead. n the

97

Landowner Consultee – please see letter sent under separate cover in

Appendix 5.3 of the Consultation Statement.

98

Ashtead provides less social housing than av. in MV- 8.5% v 13%. Given

the housing crisis,it needs to contribute as much as others - not opt out.

Ashtead Neighbourhood Forum · Ashtead Independent Councillors – newsletter to Ashtead residents...

Documents

Transcript of Ashtead Neighbourhood Forum · Ashtead Independent Councillors – newsletter to Ashtead residents...