RA Response to West Hall Planning Application

Byfleet. West Byfleet, and Pyrford Residents Association has submitted the following response to the West Hall planning application (PLAN/2024/0475)

FOR THE ATTENTION OF JOANNE HOLLINGDALE

Dear Ms. Hollingdale,

PLAN/2024/0475

ADDRESS: Land At West Hall Parvis Road West Byfleet Surrey KT14 6EY

PROPOSAL: Hybrid planning application (part outline, part full planning application) for residential development (Class C3) for up to 461no. residential units and delivery of 15no. traveller pitches and associated infrastructure including groundworks, car parking, open space and landscaping and new vehicular access via a new [roundabout] access junction from the A245 Parvis Road and highway works to be provided in phases; including full planning application for the detailed phase(s) comprising: construction of 253no. residential units (Class C3) and change of use of land for the provision of 15no. traveller pitches and associated infrastructure including groundworks, car parking, open space and landscaping and new vehicular access via a new [roundabout] access junction from the A245 Parvis Road and highway works (Environmental Statement submitted).

The Byfleet, West Byfleet, and Pyrford Residents’ Association has serious concerns regarding this Application and wishes to object 

INTRODUCTION

This Application is for a major residential development in the village of West Byfleet in addition to both the recent development at Broadoaks Park and the ongoing development at Botanical Place. Its social and infrastructure consequences will impact on our neighbouring villages of Byfleet and Pyrford. All three villages are rightly concerned at the inevitable consequences that will result and the unsustainable burden on traffic/roads; schools; health centre; the environment and many other aspects that are fundamental to maintaining residents’ quality of life.

The sites in question (GB9 and GB9A) are of course no longer Green Belt land and under the adopted SADPD (which went through public examination and the Inspector modified the final report to ensure that it was sound, justified and legally compliant) have been allocated for housing. Therefore, residential development is established in principle.

However, any such development must go hand in hand with investment in the necessary and essential infrastructure; comply with Neighbourhood Forum Policies; comply with Woking Borough Council Core Strategy and its other relevant Policies; comply with the National Planning Policy Framework; and address the many issues raised by the statutory consultees.  This Application quite simply fails to do so and as submitted should be refused.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT PARTICULARY ON THE A245 (the Parvis Road)

The Traffic Assessment in support of this Application is in 16 parts plus the Environmental Statement and runs to over 1,100 pages, many of an extremely technical nature. Part 8 includes a Transport Assessment carried out in 2015 and Part 1 confirms that trip rates based upon similar sites within the TRICS dataset have been applied to the proposed development and trip distribution is based upon 2011 census data. So not exactly current.

The Strategic Transport Assessment 2015 confirmed that the A245 failed on both the Level of Service and the Ratio of Flow to Capacity. At the Examination in Public Surrey County Council confirmed that nothing had improved and was not going to. Since then much has happened with an increase in car ownership and in West Byfleet the Broadoaks development.

At the time of writing, SCC Transport as a Statutory Consultee have yet to respond.

The work by Stuart Michael Associates on behalf of the Applicant is both informative and helpful if perhaps slightly confusing regarding current over capacity and available capacity.

This development, should it be approved, will result in around an extra 750 cars and nor should we ignore the 100 residential parking places at Botanical Place.

In paragraph 1.24 of Part 1 we read “Based upon the various capacity assessments undertaken which include the various agreed committed developments, it is considered that all junctions will continue to operate acceptably with both the Phase 1 and subsequent Phase 2 Development coming forward.”

We also read as follows:-

5.143 Based upon the future year assessments undertaken, the proposed site access will operate with adequate spare capacity during both peak periods, with minimal queuing and delay on all approaches.

5.144 Despite Junctions 1 and 8 being slightly over capacity, the percentage increase of RFC due to the proposed development are minimal at these junctions. Therefore, it can be considered that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on the local highway network….

And yet Table 5.59 tells a rather different story, particularly with “junctions” 1 and 8.

The suggested solution to this gridlocked road is a roundabout which potentially will exacerbate the problem. It is clear that a more fundamental and imaginative solution is required.

This issue is examined in great detail by a local expert, Stuart Bradshaw, in his learned and comprehensive submission on the Planning Portal dated 4th August.

The RA concludes that Woking CS18 – “Ensuring development proposals provide appropriate infrastructure measures to mitigate the adverse effects of development traffic and other environmental and safety impacts (direct or cumulative). Transport Assessments will be required for development proposals, where relevant, to fully assess the impacts of development and identify appropriate mitigation measures. Developer contributions will be secured to implement transport mitigation schemes”   – is not satisfied and the mitigation proposals are almost irrelevant.

Further, NPPF paragraph 115 “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.”  speaks  for itself.

TRAVEL PLAN

This is where the views and statistics submitted by experts acting on behalf of the Applicant part company with reality.

Stuart Michael Associates in their detailed report advise us that:

3.8 Figure 3.2 shows the existing provision of pedestrian and cycle routes around the site. Key pedestrian/cycle routes are present along the A245, Parvis Road leading to the centre of the village. These routes provide access to nearby bus stops, local schools, recreational spaces, and retail areas.

3.9 A shared footway/cycleway runs along the northern side of the A245, Parvis Road from A245, Parvis Road/Old Woking Road junction in the centre of West Byfleet to the A245/Chertsey Road/High Road roundabout in Byfleet.

3.10 A shared footway/cycleway also exists on the southern side of the A245, Parvis Road for approximately 200m. This shared walkway/cycleway heads west towards the centre of West Byfleet from the Broadoaks Park housing development, which is located approximately 350m west of the Site entrance.

3.11 The A245, Parvis Road provides access eastbound for cyclists and pedestrians over the M25 bridge to Byfleet in the east and into the centre of West Byfleet towards the train station to the west.

However:

The north side shared path is inadequate as regards width, is badly maintained, and is dangerous with several poorly sighted crossings. The south side shared path, while better in spite of previous undertakings, remains unfinished and needs to be adopted.  Further, the RA is not a supporter of shared paths as this gives rise to friction especially when narrow, though clearly there is limited space. However, in this instance with two paths if correctly constructed and maintained this could be achieved.

We are also told that:

3.16 Further MfS guidance considers that a walkable neighbourhood is one which has a range of facilities within 10 minutes’ walking distance (up to 800m) of residential area, which residents can comfortably access on foot.

and

3.15 The DfT (DMRB, Volume 5 – Provision for Non-Motorised Users – February 2005) recognises that ….Nearly three quarters of all journeys are less than 5 miles in length; distances that could easily be cycled by the majority of people.

The problem is that, according to Table 3.1, out of 24 journeys only two have a walking time of less than 10 minutes and as regards cycling, in spite of increased popularity, the majority of people are not cyclists.

Mayer Brown, instructed by a resident, express the following opinions and concerns:

2.3 …… the whole of the housing development exceeds the preferred maximum walking distance for bus users.

2.8 The SMA notes that in theory, nearly half of all journeys are less than 2 miles, a distance which could be walked by the majority of people. However, in reality, many people are unwilling to walk this distance, with travel by car proving quicker particularly outside of peak hours. National Travel Survey data for 2022 suggests that 69% of walking trips are less than one mile, indicating most people are not willing to walk further than this.

2.9 This suggests that residents living within the southern area of the site may be discouraged from travelling on foot to surrounding facilities outside the site, due to the distance required to access the wider footway network from the site – with a walk from the south of the site to Parvis Road being more than 10 minutes away, plus additional distance to access off-site facilities – for example, to get to West Byfleet Station from the south of the site would require a walk of over a mile taking approximately 25 minutes. Even for those in the north of the site, if it takes five minutes to access Parvis Road, this may also discourage walking, and encourage residents to make more local trips by private car.

2.11 In this location, the walk to and from Parvis Road from the development may provide a pleasant route during the daytime, albeit will take nearly five minutes for the northernmost residents to reach the wider area on foot, but after dark, the route is likely to feel remote and secluded, due to no passive surveillance from housing, with pedestrians walking past woodland with limited passing traffic. This lack of a feeling of personal security will discourage travel by foot during the evening, including walking to/from bus stops, which will also discourage commuters coming home on foot in the early evening during the winter.

Not encouraging.  This Travel Plan is clearly both ambitious and unrealistic.

Active Travel England in their excellent letter dated 9th August state that they are not currently in a position to support this Application and request further assessment, evidence, revisions and/or dialogue as set out in their response.

FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE

West Byfleet Neighbourhood Forum Plan Policy I3  – “Wastewater and Sewerage Infrastructure Development proposals will be required to demonstrate that there is adequate waste water capacity and surface water drainage both on and off the site to serve the development and that it would not create issues for existing or new users within The Area or beyond, in line with National Planning Policy Guidance and with guidance on Sustainable Drainage Schemes (SuDS) developed by susdrain and adopted by Thames Water.”

WBC Core Strategy 9 – “The Council will require all significant forms of development to incorporate appropriate sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) as part of any development proposals. If this is not feasible, the Council will require evidence illustrating this.” 

GB9 and GB9A are designated by the Environment Agency as in Flood Zone 1 – the lowest probability of flooding. It is, however, accepted that this site suffers from a significate volume of surface water which in recent years with climate change has been becoming progressively more serious. We believe that it is generally accepted that the EA data is now rather historic and is about to be updated. If possible, the updated information should be a condition should this Application be approved.

The intention is to raise the level of the residential site by two metres.  It is not clear what impact if any this will have on drainage.

The many other relevant issues are discussed in considerable detail in the Pyrford Neighbourhood Forum submission of  2nd October on the Planning Portal. We agree with their conclusions.

Surrey County Council act as the Lead Local Flood Authority and as a statutory consultee their advice relates to surface water flood risk and surface water drainage only.  They state that “they are satisfied that the proposed drainage scheme meets the requirements set out in the aforementioned documents and are content with the development proposed.”  However, they then essentially contradict themselves by giving advice and proposing several conditions that suggest that they are far from satisfied.

In view of the above, clearly this Application cannot be approved without additional information.  Further, an approval subject to conditions is not appropriate as it places the community in an unacceptably weak position.

FOUL WATER/THAMES WATER

Firstly, it is important to note that Thames Water does actually object to aspects of this development. Indeed, they highlight that future occupiers of this development should be made aware that they could periodically experience adverse amenity impacts from the nearby pumping station in the form of odour, light, vibration and /or noise.

Thames Water then explain that they have identified an inability to accommodate the needs of this development proposal.  They explain:

“Thames Water has contacted the developer in an attempt to agree a position for foul water networks but has been unable to do so in the time available and as such Thames Water request that the following condition be added to any planning permission. The development shall not be occupied until confirmation has been provided that either:-

1. All foul water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been completed; or-
2. A development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with the Local Authority in consultation with Thames Water to allow development to be occupied. Where a development and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed, no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed development and infrastructure phasing plan. Reason – Network reinforcement works are likely to be required to accommodate the proposed development. Any reinforcement works identified will be necessary in order to avoid sewage flooding and/or potential pollution incidents.”

The EA in their letter of the 2nd September make the following very important statements:

“We note that Thames Water have identified that there is insufficient capacity within the sewerage network to accommodate this development. Therefore, Thames Water needs carry out modelling of the sewerage network in order to determine whether the proposed residential units can be accommodated, with any necessary upgrades/reinforcement of the network infrastructure.

The proposed development will only meet the National Planning Policy Framework’s (NPPF) requirements in relation to water pollution if the following planning condition is included….. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the improvement of the sewerage system to accommodate the additional wastewater flows from the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. …..”

We are also particularly aware of the severe financial difficulties facing Thames Water which may well inhibit their ability to address and resolve issues such as those identified in this Application.

We therefore conclude that it would be irresponsible to agree this Application, even with conditions, until such time as all of the above concerns and difficulties are resolved.

POLLUTION

The WBC Senior Environmental Health Officer has identified gaps in the construction management plan in respect of dust mitigation and suggests that this should be reviewed and amended.  There is a conversation regarding air pollution and the conclusion is that any impact is likely to be negligible.

TRAVELLER’S PITCHES

This remains a puzzling matter both as regards number (15 pitches) and position.

The chosen position is eccentric for a number of reasons and is not the original and more sensible location. The success of Travellers’ sites is primarily dependent on size and management. Fifteen is at the upper end and increases the risk of discord. It is a very clear and real concentration risk. We still do not know who will manage the site and it appears that no one wishes to assume this responsibility. That is not encouraging.

WBC Senior Environment Health Officer in a letter dated 28 August 2024 states the following:

It was highlighted at the Pre-application Meeting on 7.2.2023, that each pitch should have sufficient space provided for a mobile home, tourer and large vehicles which are generally the lifestyle requirements and included in the Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide 2008.

The proposed pitches differ in size to accommodate specific types of caravan.

The majority of pitches are large enough for a caravan and parking only with no space for a tourer. If there is space this should be shown on the plans. It does not take into account a tendency for members of the Gypsy and Traveller communities to favour the use of a mobile home in place of the traditional caravan.

The application refers to the final layout being determined by the Travellers. This consultation should take place early on in the design stage.

I would also refer the applicant to the other guidance in the Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide 2008, in particular reference to density and spacing, fire risk assessment, site perimeter boundary treatment. For example, the site boundary must provide clear demarcation of the perimeter of the site and take into account adjoining land uses and be designed with the safety and protection of children in mind.

Please advise whether the traveller consultation has been carried out and, if so, the outcome as the proposals submitted do not comply with the Design Guide.”

It is not at all clear whether any of the above have been implemented.

We would hope that it is not too late to reconsider this foolish decision and arrive at an outcome that is more acceptable and agreeable to all parties.

TREES

It is likely inevitable that when development is planned on land that until recently was Green Belt there will be an understandable determination to protect and, at best, mitigate the harm and damage to habitat, nature, trees and character of the area that will inevitably result.

Our starting position is the NPPF paragraph 186:

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:

“a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

1. c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists;”

As the Pyrford Neighbourhood Forum submission highlights:

“The proposed removal of trees within the area TPO (ref: TPO/0005/2023) i.e. the planted strip c2016 alongside Dodd’s Lane/Bridleway 92 directly impacts the character of the bridleway, its ability to act as a green corridor for wildlife, and removes a valuable visual and “green” buffer between the proposed development and the Green Belt beyond.  The proposed site plan needs to be amended to retain this green planted strip…..”

The WBC Senior Arboricultural Officer wrote on the 21st August 2024 as follows:

“The proposed from an arboricultural perspective is unacceptable for the following reasons.

1. Loss of trees: this mainly relates to the new entrance to the development which is shown to remove significant amounts of trees both sides of the proposed entrance carving its way through the woodland. Once the trees have been removed to facilitate this there will be further tree loss as the remaining trees will be vulnerable to wind throw due to now being exposed. The creation of an entrance in this area will have a significant impact on the character of the area. These trees have been protected by a TPO.
2. This area is a green field site with historic hedgerows with mature trees within it, including ancient / veteran trees. While the vast majority of the trees are shown to be retained within these hedgerows, they will all be detrimentally affected by the change in use of the land as raising the ground levels and covering the area with hard surfaces will affect the hydrology of the area, which in turn will affect the trees which have adapted to the environment over hundreds of years.
3. The incursion into the RPA’s of the hedgerow trees running north to south where earth embankments are to be created is unacceptable as, although measures are shown to reduce the impact, this will increase the likelihood of further stress on these highly valuable protected trees and will ultimately lead to further losses.”

The RA is of the opinion that it needs to say no more in the face of this proposed shocking environmental vandalism.

SURREY POLICE

In their letter dated 24th July Surrey Police referring to NPPF paragraphs 91 and 127 and WBC DM7 paragraph 6.5 recommended a full pre planning consultation to assess the project with a view to it being granted a planning condition to attain a Secured by Design certification.

There is no indication that this has happened.

With 461 new homes and fifteen travellers’ pitches it is likely that policing will find itself under resourced. What will be the cost of rectifying this situation and how will it be funded?

SCHOOLS

Response from Surrey County Council Education

“4.13 Surrey County Council considers that the new housing proposed will likely result in increased demand for school places. Additional educational infrastructure will be needed to accommodate children from families moving into the development. Without a contribution to mitigate this, the proposal could have an unacceptable negative effect on education in the area and jeopardise Surrey County Council’s ability to fulfil its statutory duty to provide sufficient school places.

4.14 Surrey County Council will work with Woking Borough Council to request contributions through the CIL bidding process.”

SCC are using more more recent data (i.e. not the Woking 1DP 2021) and have agreed that there is a surplus of primary school places in Byfleet and West Byfleet.  However, at both Early Years and Secondary stage education it is calculated that these additional 461 homes will result in a shortfall of school places.  To remedy this, SCC will seek a contribution of £2,499,529 as follows:

Early Years Contribution:£436,968

Primary Contribution:£0

Secondary Contribution:£2,062,561

Overall Contribution:£2,499,529

The detailed calculations are set out in the SCC Education letter dated 25th September 2024:

“Education is listed in the latest Infrastructure Funding Statement as a type of infrastructure that can be wholly or partly funded through CIL payments. The applicant is therefore committed to make a financial contribution, likely via CIL, in order to facilitate the education infrastructure required within Woking Borough to support this proposed development.” 

WEST BYFLEET HEALTH CENTRE

It is not in dispute that the three practices in the West Byfleet Health Centre care for a combined patient population of 34,626. There is zero spare capacity and all professional staff are working under severe and unreasonable pressure. This is before the completion of Botanical Place comprising 199 apartments for the over 65 age group with the additional medical care requirements that these residents will require.  This Application, should it be approved, will result in a further 1,000 patients.

We believe that prior to the construction of Broadoaks Park and Botanical Place there was no consultation with the Health Centre. As regards this Application again it is unclear whether or not there has been a consultation.

However, there has been a response from the Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care Board though again it is not clear whether this was submitted after discussions with the West Byfleet Health Centre.

The ICB considers it necessary for measures to be put in place so that the impacts to local health care as a direct result of this proposed development is addressed. If left unmitigated the proposal would be considered unsustainable development. An index linked S.106 financial contribution will be sought.

The following will be requested:

Primary Care £497,340

Acute Care £443,381

Intermediate Care £14,689

Mental Health Care £ 34,650

Total Capital Cost £990,061

Please note that these are capital funds.

Ongoing increased annual revenue costs are ignored. They cannot be included in the financial calculation. The Applicant states in the case of financial contributions to mitigate potential healthcare impacts, there is a need to make a clear distinction between financial contributions towards NHS capital funding and revenue funding.  In support of this the recent case of R (University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust) v Harborough District Council [2023] is cited.

The position established by this High Court case applies exclusively to financial contribution applications towards NHS revenue funding. This decision has no effect on s106 applications to fund capital projects – such as new GP surgeries – to meet the needs of the additional population of a residential development. This decision is not being appealed and thus is binding on Planning Inspectors.

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (‘CIL’)

We understand that the approximate amount of CIL under this application will be circa £4.5 million.

Of this amount, 25% (£1,125,000) goes to West Byfleet Neighbourhood Forum and 40% (£1,800,000) goes to the provision of a compensating SANG (GB12).  This leaves £1,575,000.  SCC Education department require £2.5m.  So, even before other infrastructure requirements, we have a shortfall of almost £1million.  The Chancellor is not alone in finding a financial black hole.

SANG (GB12)

With reference to this matter the letter from Natural England dated 18th September 2024 is of particular importance.  Natural England requires further information as follows:

“Further information and details on the proposed SANG the development will make mitigation contributions towards.  Without this information, Natural England may need to object to the proposal.”

Natural England also makes a number of fundamental statements including:

“Natural England have reviewed the documentation and welcome the commitment outlined in Appendix 7.8 – Habitat Regulations Assessment to contribute towards both Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) to mitigate against recreational pressure arising from the proposed development.

Natural England note that this states that contributions will be provided towards Woking’s SANG network, however, it is Natural England’s understanding that there is not currently sufficient capacity within the Council’s own existing SANG network to mitigate for this development. In the absence of a legal agreement confirming contributions towards an appropriate SANG that has capacity to mitigate for this development, Natural England do not have sufficient certainty that the effects of this development will be appropriately mitigated…………

If the proposed SANG is not yet legally secured, then it would fail the tests of certainty and deliverability, and Natural England would advise that this would not allow any associated housing to pass appropriate assessment………………..

Please note that if your authority is minded to grant planning permission contrary to the advice in this letter, you are required under Section 28I (6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to notify Natural England of the permission, the terms on which it is proposed to grant it and how, if at all, your authority has taken account of Natural England’s advice. You must also allow a further period of 21 days before the operation can commence.”

The RA seeks confirmation that:

1. a)    WBC will comply with and satisfy the conditions set out by Natural England; and

WBC will prior to the Planning Committee meeting to discus this Application:

1. 1. b)    set out the costs of creating this SANG to mitigate the impact of this proposed development
   2. c)    confirm that the necessary funds are available and will not be impacted by any future S.114 Notice
   3. d)    has planning permission in its own right
   4. e)   no occupation of the development will be permitted until such times as the SANG facility is available to the public.

INFRASTRUCTURE

• WBC have a clear policy on infrastructure delivery – CS16
• In February 2021 the now leader of Woking BC as part of the approval process of the SADPD proposed setting up a joint study on the future infrastructure requirements of the east of Woking. The community did a lot of work, the Council did very little, and realistically nothing has happened. Mere lip service.
• The NPPF current and under consultation is clear on the necessity of supporting infrastructure going hand in hand with development.
• Our Member of Parliament is clear that the necessary infrastructure must go in tandem with development.
• Our Deputy Prime Minister in her letter dated 30th July to Local Authority Leaders was also very clear that part of achieving sustainable growth was the delivery of strategic infrastructure.

So, many fine words and intentions, but sadly little achievement.

What will the necessary infrastructure cost to support this proposed development be, and where will the funding come from to support it?

What will be the cost of the ‘improvements’ on the Parvis Road?  Will this be dealt with under a section 278 agreement?  We have established that CIL is inadequate. What section 106 agreements are being negotiated? What is the financial position regarding GB12/SANG?  We know that WBC has no money.

CONCLUSION

We thank the Applicant for their community engagement which was both welcome and appreciated. We also thank them for the very detailed background papers, research and information included in their application submission. The work involved is quite remarkable.

In this submission the RA has addressed issues that we know deeply concern the community. Others, such as biodiversity net gain; habitat; density; ecology surveys (e.g. badgers, where we have been prevented from accessing the site) etc. are no less important, but others have addressed these concerns. Another outstanding concern is the raising in height of the development site by 2 metres. What are the implications of achieving this? How many HGV movements over what period of time will be necessary to execute this transformation?

It is clear that many statutory consultees consider the Application flawed or at least not resolving issues of concern and importance, and others have yet to respond. WBC Officers have also expressed serious misgivings.  We share many of these concerns and in addition do not currently see how they will be rectified and at what cost.

Our recommendation to you as Planning Officer and to the Planning Committee is that this Application as presented should be refused.

Thank you and kind regards,

Stewart Dick

Chair
Byfleet, West Byfleet and Pyrford Residents’ Association