Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Council held on 18/02/2003



February 2003



Why is Supplementary Planning Guidance necessary?
The Special Interest Group process and community involvement
Resume of the site’s history


The Major Developed Site
National and Regional Planning Policy Guidance
The Waverley Borough Local Plan



Nature Conservation and Landscape
Visual Impact and Design
Highways and Transportation
Services and Infrastructure
Social and Community Facilities
Land Uses
Demolition and/or Re-Use


Proposed Uses
Major Developed Site in the Green Belt
Residential Development
Open Space and Landscape
Highways and Access
Public Transport
Services and Infrastructure
Nature Conservation




Appendix 1 : Initial Views of BT and Thames Water


Why is a Supplementary Planning Guidance Necessary?

1.1 This Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) has regard to Government guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 12 : Development Plans and Regional Planning Guidance. The Secretary of State gives substantial weight to SPG where that SPG is derived from and is consistent with the Adopted Development Plan together with any relevant National or Regional Planning Policy Guidance and has been prepared following proper public consultation. An SPG that has been prepared in this manner will become a material consideration in the determination of subsequent planning applications.

1.2 This SPG relates to redundant land and buildings at Milford Hospital which ceased operational use in 1998 and were declared surplus by the Secretary of State for Health in mid-2000. Part of the Milford Hospital site has been retained as an elderly persons’ recuperation facility by the Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS Trust, to whom the remaining operational land was transferred in April 2001 including its own independent access, car park and administrative buildings. The redundant land that is the subject of this development brief - extending to 13.15 hectares (32+ acres) - is shown on Plan A.

1.3 In October 1997, The Bell Cornwell Partnership (BCP) - independent town planning consultants - and Stuart Michael Associates (SMA) - highways and engineering consultants - were jointly commissioned by the Secretary of State to examine the redevelopment options for the redundant land and buildings.

1.4 This preliminary work involved an assessment of the opportunities and constraints offered by the site’s location; the physical condition of the existing buildings; economic and commercial feasibility; highways, access and utilities; environmental factors and potential community benefits. A number of reports and relevant discussions with statutory undertakers that arose from this preliminary work by the consultants on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health are referred to below.

1.5 Following on from that initial site appraisal, the Waverley Borough Local Plan (2002) ultimately confirmed Milford Hospital as a ‘Major Developed Site in the Green Belt’ in which infilling and re-development are deemed to constitute appropriate development within carefully defined parameters (See Section 2, below). The Local Plan also confirmed that should redevelopment occur, the site is primarily suitable for residential purposes.

1.6 In that context, this SPG provides potential developers with a framework within which to devise their redevelopment proposals and within which the Borough Council can consider those proposals at the planning application stage. It also provides the current owner - the Secretary of State for Health - with clear guidance on the future development potential of the redundant land and buildings before offering the site for sale through the statutory tender procedures.

1.7 By involving all interested parties - including local residents, Parish Councils and amenity groups - in drawing up the SPG, through public participation at all stages in its evolution, it has been possible to develop an holistic approach to the future development of the site, having regard to the underlying principles of sustainability.

The Special Interest Group and Community Involvement

1.8 In November 2001, the Council’s Executive Committee agreed that Supplementary Planning Guidance should be prepared to guide the site’s future development under the guidance of the Local Plan Special Interest Group (SIG).

1.9 In December 2001, it was agreed at a meeting of the SIG that residents should be brought into the SPG process as soon as possible. Subsequently, a workshop with residents was held in April 2002 at which their views were expressed and further written comments were invited. Those views have been incorporated into this development brief.

1.10 The draft development brief was the subject of public consultation in August/September 2002, prior to its final adoption in February 2003.

1.11 Milford Hospital is situated 2 km (1 miles) south west of Godalming town centre and 1.5 km (1 mile) east of Milford. Vehicular access to the site is from Tuesley Lane, which links northwards to Godalming town centre through a narrow cutting and restricted bridge and southwards to Milford village centre via Station Lane. There are footpath links to the town centre and Milford railway station. The site is the main built development component of the settlement of Tuesley with a total site area of 15.3 hectares (37.8 acres), as shown on Plan A.

1.12 The hospital complex was originally constructed as a specialist chest hospital, but the virtual eradication of tuberculosis-related disease led to its conversion into a specialist NHS day surgery and elderly persons’ rehabilitation unit. Those operational changes resulted in a gradual reduction in the suitability and need for the site’s long-stay recuperation wards.

1.13 In the last 25 years, a number of the original long-stay wards have been demolished. As recently as 1995, a large double ward block located on the southern edge of the complex was removed. Some of the vacant staff houses on the Tuesley Lane frontage have also been demolished, most recently in 1997, whilst many others elsewhere on the site lie vacant, including two substantial blocks of nurses’ accommodation. The purpose-built NHS Trust elderly persons’ rehabilitation unit was opened in 1985, on the site of two of the original wards. The present disposition of buildings is shown on Plan D.

1.14 In 1997, a detailed survey of the site was commissioned by the Secretary of State. Following a subsequent structural inspection of the various redundant hospital buildings, it seemed likely that the only realistic and viable option for the best use of the residual land and buildings at Milford Hospital would be residential redevelopment. Alternative land uses, including community and employment uses, have been explored through the Local Plan process and the residents’ workshop.


2.1 The planning policy context for Milford Hospital is provided by the recently adopted Waverley Borough Local Plan (2002) which reflects the strategic policies of the Surrey Structure Plan (1993). The SPG also reflects Regional Planning Guidance for
2.2 Although Milford Hospital lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt, it is not within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. None of its buildings is statutory listed nor does any appear on the Borough Council’s list of buildings of local interest. It is not within a Conservation Area. As previously indicated, the adopted Waverley Borough Local Plan (2002) identifies the site as a ‘Major Developed Site in the Green Belt’ [MDS], as defined in Annex C of PPG2.

2.3 The main policies in the adopted Local Plan, which are relevant to this site, are referred to below. Subsequent sections of this brief seek to ensure that the key policy principles will be adhered to.

2.4 A planning application proposing redevelopment, which meets the requirements of this brief and accords with the advice in PPG2, Annex C and Policy RD6 of the adopted Local Plan, would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Accordingly, such a proposal would not be a departure from the Adopted Development Plan.

2.5 The SPG is supplementary to Policy RD6 of the Local Plan. This policy provides overall guidance on the development of MDSs. It is the key policy, reflecting the principles of PPG2, Annex C. Policy RD6 states:-

2.6 A rider to Policy RD6 confirms that for the purposes of this policy, the relevant area under criterion b(iv) is the aggregate ground floor area (i.e. ‘footprint’) of the existing buildings, excluding temporary buildings, open spaces with direct external access between the wings of a building and areas of hardstanding.

2.7 The extent of the MDS designation in the Local Plan is shown on Plan B, (which has been extracted from the adopted Local Plan). The redundant part of the site contains twenty-six existing dwellings, two and three-storey nurses’ accommodation blocks, a range of single-storey and two-storey hospital buildings and ancillary buildings, water tower and workshops. The total aggregate footprint of these buildings is some 8000 m2 (86,000 ft2 ).

2.8 There are several Local Plan Policies that are relevant to the development of this site in addition to the site-specific guidance in Policy RD6. As the Local Plan is recently adopted, its policies reflect Regional Planning Guidance in RPG9 and the National Planning Policy Guidance in PPG1, PPG3 and PPG13, on matters such as adopting sustainable development principles, the importance of good design and the need to create mixed communities.

2.9 Advice on the design and layout is set out in Policy D4, which refers to the need for all new development to be appropriate to it setting, in terms of its scale, height, form and appearance. Detailed advice on the provision of private amenity space and childrens’ play space in residential developments is given in Policy H10.

2.10 Policy H4 states that in order to meet identified housing needs, new housing schemes should achieve a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare, in line with PPG3 advice. It also specifies that at least 50% of all units should have two bedrooms or less and that at least 80% should have a maximum of three bedrooms, whilst no more than 20% should have a gross floor area (including garage) exceeding 165m2. Policy H5 addresses the provision of subsidised affordable housing and Policy H7 the provision of special needs housing, including that required by key workers. (See also Section 5, below)

2.11 Nature conservation issues are covered in Policy D5, which refers to the protection of wildlife habitats and the retention of important trees and hedgerows on development sites. Advice on trees is given in Policies C7, D6 and D7.

2.12 Traffic and highways matters are addressed in the ‘Movement’ chapter of the Local Plan. Policy M2 requires that all new developments should provide a safe means of access by car, cycle or on foot and refers to the Residential Design Guide published by Surrey County Council, the statutory Highway Authority. More detailed advice on movement issues is provided by Policy LT11 (walking, cycling and horse riding); Policy M4 (pedestrians); Policy M5 (cyclists) and Policy M10 (public transport). Policy M14 advises that in accordance with PPG3 and PPG13, residential developments should not exceed an average of 1.5 car parking spaces per dwelling.

2.13 Policy D3 encourages the conservation of energy and other resources. Policy D13 requires that adequate infrastructure and public amenity services are provided in connection with all new developments, whilst Policy D12 includes guidance on flooding and surface run-off.

2.14 It is expected that larger housing schemes will provide planning benefits that are commensurate with the scale and form of the development. Policy D14 contains a list of possible benefits, including; the provision of affordable and special needs housing; improved facilities for public transport users, cyclists and pedestrians; social and education facilities and open space.

2.15 Other relevant Local Plan Policies include: Policy D1 (general environmental considerations); Policy D2 (compatibility of land uses); Policy D8 (designing out crime); Policies D9 and M9 (mobility housing and disabled access); Policy CF2 (provision of community facilities) and Policy IC12 (working from home).


3.1 Overall, the Borough Council’s key aims for the redundant land and buildings at Milford Hospital are to:

conform with the principles of sustainability
provide clear development principles for the future development of the site; and
achieve the most efficient use of the site whilst minimizing traffic impacts on the local road network and environmental impacts on the surrounding area.

3.2 In that context, the Council’s key objectives are to:

amplify the guidance in Local Plan Policy RD6;
identify and resolve the key environmental, traffic and utility constraints;
protect the rural character and amenity of the area;
ensure that a balanced community is created, incorporating an appropriate mix of dwelling form, size and tenure;
co-ordinate with the retained hospital uses; and
promote sustainable development and sustainable construction technologies.

3.3 Within the context provided by the above guidance and policies, there is an opportunity to create a viable residential development, reflecting the rural character of the site, whilst making full and effective use of the available land and buildings and ensuring that the NHS activities on the remainder of the site are not compromised.


4.1 The re-development of the redundant land and buildings at Milford Hospital raises some significant planning issues. This brief intends to examine these issues so that the development opportunities offered by the site can be maximised. The matters referred to below are summarised on Plan C and Plan D.

4.2 The site it is not subject to any statutory or non-statutory nature conservation designations (SSSI, SNCI, etc), but supports a range of natural habitats. The site was inspected by an independent badger consultant in June 2000, who concluded that there was no sign of badger activity on the site. Further detailed ecological and landscape impact studies must be carried out by prospective developers in consultation with English Nature.

4.3 The main body of the site is generally level with a north to south fall of around 5 metres (16 feet). However, its southernmost part comprises a shallow valley, some 10 - 15 metres (32 - 50 feet) deep within which is a small stream flowing from east to west, bounded by non-maintained woodland. In south-west part of the site, there is an established apple orchard planted on the slope leading down to the stream. Elsewhere within the site there are a number of specimen trees and copses of self seeded trees, whilst the western boundary is defined by a footpath and intermittent hedgerow. A detailed tree and woodland survey must be carried out by prospective developers. The north-west part of the site is an open grassed area, formerly laid out as a football and cricket pitch but no longer in active use by those sports.

4.4 A visual impact analysis was prepared by the Bell Cornwell Partnership when the site was first declared redundant, but developers must carry out their own up-to-date analysis.

4.5 The site is generally hidden in the wider landscape by topographical and man-made features, although the top part of the water tower is visible from certain locations and could possibly be retained as a ‘landmark’ feature. The taller hospital buildings, including the three-storey nurses accommodation block are also visible from the south.

4.6 Such matters should be an integral part of any planning application together with a PPG1 Design Statement.

4.7 At present, the principal means of vehicular access is from the south from Milford village via Station Lane and Tuesley Lane. Alternatively, it is possible to access the site from Godalming via Tuesley Lane from the north, although the width of this road is restricted by a narrow bridge and deep cutting as it passes Ladywell Convent and Busbridge Lakes.

4.8 There is a footpath link to Milford village and station along Tuesley Lane and Station Lane, Public footpath #161 provides a more direct link from Tuesley Lane to the station, its route crossing the former playing fields and running along the western boundary of the hospital grounds. Other public footpaths link the northern part of the site with Portsmouth Road (A3100) to the west, Hydestile to the south-east, and Holloway Hill and Busbridge to the north-east. These linkages are shown on the Site Context Plan - Plan C.

4.9 The eventual developer of the site must carry out his own Transportation Assessment in association with any planning application. A comprehensive traffic and highways analysis has previously been undertaken by Stuart Michael Associates on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health following discussions with Surrey County Council. The SMA traffic and highways analysis envisaged that highway improvement works would be required as part of a traffic management scheme for the development with the aim of discouraging through traffic from using the narrow stretch of Tuesley Lane to the north of the site. (See Section 5, below)

4.10 Milford Hospital is presently served by bus route #532, operated by Carlone Buses on behalf of Surrey County Council to and from Godalming, Farncombe and Shamley Green. This service operates to the hospital four times daily in each direction, on weekdays only, based upon a two hourly frequency. Other bus services link the hospital with surrounding towns via the bus interchange in Bridge Street, Godalming.

4.11 South West Trains services from Milford Station provide direct links to London Waterloo and Portsmouth, with intermediate stops at Godalming, Guildford, Woking and Petersfield. The peak hour service each way is at least twice hourly between 6:30 and 8:30 am. Thereafter, there is an hourly service in each direction. There are indirect links to Reading, Dorking, Redhill and Gatwick Airport from Guildford.

4.12 Consultations have been carried out by Stuart Michael Associates on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health with the Environment Agency and Thames Water. However, formal consultation with the statutory undertakers should be carried out by the eventual developer in the context of the specific demands of their redevelopment proposals.

4.13 The principal social and community use on the site at present is the NHS Trust hospital unit. The redundant part of the site includes several vacant community buildings that formerly served the needs of the hospital staff, patients and visitors,
4.14 The recreation pitches to the north-west part of the site were originally used by hospital staff, although as resident staff numbers have decreased, that use has ceased and the associated changing room facilities have become derelict. The football pitch was last used on a regular basis in the mid-1990's by a local junior boys team.

4.15 When it was fully operational, the site accommodated several distinct uses, each linked to the use of the site as a non-acute hospital. As well as the medical facilities, (wards, operating theatres, etc) there were ancillary administrative and service buildings (kitchens, halls, offices, shop); workshops and storage buildings and residential houses and nurses’ accommodation.

4.16 The disposition of these uses is shown on Plan D, together with the principal areas of hardstanding, the covered ways that linked the wards and the site of the double ward demolished in 1995. That plan also identifies the site’s significant landscape features.

4.17 None of the buildings is Listed or within a Conservation Area. The original wards, operating theatre, kitchens and workshops are probably not worthy of retention. In addition, the conversion of the social club, dining hall and nurses’ accommodation blocks is unlikely to be realistic because of practical problems arising from their construction and internal layout. It is possible that the existing residential properties at the northern end of the site and on the Tuesley Lane frontage could be retained, provided that the overall development of the site is not compromised.


5.1 The Secretary of State for Health will not be the eventual developer of the redundant land and buildings. Therefore, this SPG is intended to supplement Local Plan Policy RD6 and the other relevant Development Plan Policies by suggesting how the principles embodied in PPG2, Annex C regarding the redevelopment of Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt can be successfully addressed at Milford Hospital.

5.2 The SPG seeks to provide a broad indication of the redevelopment principles that should be employed. This approach is taken in order not to fetter unreasonably the ability of the eventual developer to promote their own ideas regarding an appropriate site layout or mix of house types, whilst providing Waverley Borough Council with a set of parameters against which to judge any future planning applications. A greater level of detail would only be appropriate where Listed Buildings or conservation area issues are at stake, which is not the case here.

5.3 In that light, the SPG sets out the broad principles for development in the succeeding paragraphs under a number of subject headings, the salient points of which are summarised on Plan E as the ‘Preferred Development Zones’. The existing arrangement whereby the NHS Trust buildings are serviced via the northern access from Tuesley Lane should be maintained.
5.4 Policy RD6 of the Local Plan confirms that the site is most suited for residential purposes. It is therefore expected that re-development will take the form of residential dwellings and flats, plus appropriate ancillary community, leisure, retail and/or employment uses and the need for infrastructure that is designed specifically to serve and complement the new residential community.

5.5 In accordance with the advice in PPG 2, Annex C, (as reflected by Local Plan Policy RD6), the areas identified for development on Plan E broadly reflect the spread of the existing built development. The exception is that the westernmost extent of the existing single storey hospital wards are not to be redeveloped, but are instead to be reinstated as open land to form part of the swathe of landscaped parkland and recreational open space surrounding the built development. This will increase the openness of the Green Belt in this area.

5.6 Policy RD6 states that any redevelopment proposals should “have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and where possible have less”. In seeking to achieve that objective, consistent with national and strategic policies which promote sustainable development, the policy makes specific reference to new development not exceeding the height of the existing buildings - which comprise single storey wards, two storey houses and administrative buildings and a three-storey nurses’ accommodation block - whilst also not occupying a larger site than the existing buildings (i.e. ‘footprint’) unless this would achieve a reduction in height which would benefit visual amenity.

Residential Development

5.7 In addition to Local Plan Policy RD6, which sets out the broad principles that apply to the redevelopment of MDSs, it is expected that any residential layout will also comply with the development criteria in Policies H4 (dwelling mix and size); D4 (scale, height, form and appearance); H10 (amenity and play space); C5, C7, D6 and D7 (nature conservation and trees); M14 (car parking) and M2, M4 and M5 (access by various means of transport). NB. Other relevant policies are referred to in Section 4 and are listed in Section 6.

5.8 Local Housing Needs Surveys indicate that there is a specific need for subsidised affordable housing in Waverley. Local Plan Policy H5 seeks to establish a minimum affordable housing quota of 30% on all major housing sites within settlements. In addition, Policy H7 identifies a need for ‘Key Worker’ and other specialised needs housing.

5.9 This site, being a Major Developed Site and identified as being appropriate primarily for housing, is considered to fall within the ambit of these policies. The precise dwelling mix, size, amount of subsidised affordable housing and amount of ‘Key Worker’ housing to be provided on the site will be the subject of detailed discussions with the Borough Council’s Housing and Planning Officers. Subsidised and affordable housing and ‘Key Worker’ housing will be the subject of an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure their retention in perpetuity.

5.10 Should the existing staff accommodation be retained and placed in the subsidised housing sector in perpetuity as part of a comprehensive redevelopment proposal, it may form a proportion of the affordable housing requirement across the site as a whole in the context of Policies H5 and H7. Such an arrangement would have to be incorporated as part of any Section 106 Agreement.

5.11 Sustainable forms of development (including live-work units) and sustainable construction technologies (including the re-use of materials following demolition) will be encouraged.

5.12 The existing open amenity land surrounding the former hospital buildings with its mature trees and former orchard should be enhanced by additional structural landscaping in order to provide a ‘soft’ edge to the built development whilst the best quality specimen trees identified in the tree survey shall be retained. To the south, the existing wooded embankment and stream environment should be maintained and enhanced, as appropriate. To the north, the former football and cricket pitches, which are crossed by public footpath #161, will be retained as recreational open space. Changing facilities could be provided as part of a flexible community building.

5.13 The long-term management and safeguarding of the woodland and specimen trees, the open land and orchard should be addressed by means of a management agreement with Waverley Borough Council and/or a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement.

5.14 Vehicular access to the site is from Tuesley Lane, which links northwards to Godalming town centre through a narrow cutting and restricted bridge and southwards to Milford village centre via Station Lane. The southern part of the site is presently served by two vehicular accesses leading off Tuesley Lane - firstly, the NHS Trust’s in-and-out access and secondly, a service road at its extreme southern end. The northern part of the site has an independent access from Tuesley Lane, serving the staff dwellings and the former hospital visitors’ car park. This driveway also provides a service access to the NHS Trust buildings, which should be retained as part of any redevelopment scheme.

5.15 Paragraph 3.1 indicates that a key objective is to minimise the impact of traffic generated by the new development on the local highway network. Accordingly, it is envisaged that the southern part of the redeveloped site will be served by a new vehicular access, whilst the existing sub-standard southern access serving the redundant workshops and storage buildings will be permanently closed, thereby providing significant highway safety improvements. It is anticipated that the northern part of the site will be served by the existing access, with improved sight lines to Tuesley Lane and changed priorities to physically discourage drivers from exiting northwards toward Godalming (although a bus link will be maintained in this direction).

5.16 Internal highway arrangements will be designed having regard to the needs of safety in consultation with Surrey County Council in the light of the advice contained in the Surrey Design Guide to include a continuous link through the site. The NHS Trust
5.17 The existing public footpath link to Milford Station (Footpath 161) should be maintained and improved to include pedal-cyclist use and should integrate with other footpaths adjoining the site. At this stage, it is not expected that the developer will be required to hard surface or illuminate these footpaths in the wooded parts of the site, as to do so would introduce urban features into the open countryside.

5.18 In the course of their discussions with Surrey County Council, Stuart Michael Associates explored the potential for off-site highway improvements to enhance highway safety and to encourage use of public transport. It is expected that such measures will be sought as an integral part of a comprehensive Transportation Assessment to be prepared in connection with planning applications for the redevelopment of the site.

5.19 As a minimum, the following off-site improvements will be required:-

5.20 Appropriate traffic calming measures on the section of Tuesley Lane between the hospital site and Ladywell Convent will be encouraged.

5.21 In addition to the potential improvements to facilities at Milford railway station described above, the developer will be expected to provide an element of financial support to the Waverley Community Transport initiative and to instigate improvements to the existing bus service for a minimum of five years, including increased frequency of journeys and re-routeing through the new residential development to commence with the first occupation of any new dwelling on the site. This will be achieved via an Agreement under Section 106 following negotiations with Surrey County Council and the local bus operator.

5.22 Formal consultation with the statutory undertakers and other service providers shall be carried out by the eventual developer in the context of the specific demands of their redevelopment proposals. The initial views of BT and Thames Water are set out in Appendix 1.

5.23 A sustainable drainage strategy shall be incorporated within any redevelopment scheme together with measures to ensure that there are no adverse off-site impacts due to flooding or pollution of watercourses. Developers will be expected to incorporate source control techniques and sustainable drainage systems where conditions allow and groundwater is not at risk and shall include a Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with PPG25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’. Before any development is commenced, a detailed site investigation will be required to assess the degree and nature of contamination present and to determine its potential for water contamination. Appropriate measures to prevent pollution of ground and surface water, including provisions for monitoring, shall be agreed and implemented.

5.24 In order to provide essential security for the nursing and administrative staff working at the NHS Trust facility, the boundary between the development site and the retained Trust land shall be defined by a fence or wall. The line of the boundary was carefully plotted prior to the disposal of the land to the NHS Trust to provide sufficient scope for an unobtrusive, but secure, form of permanent demarcation, whilst retaining existing trees and landscaping. Any boundary treatment should permit the maintenance of a service access to the north of the NHS Trust land and potential for a vehicular access from the new road layout, without creating a ‘ransom’ strip.

5.25 Boundary enhancement will also be required along the Tuesley Lane frontage, particularly at the point where the existing southern vehicular access is to be closed off. It will also be necessary to provide a suitable boundary to the southern, western and northern boundaries of the site, where it abuts agricultural land, the stream, a public footpath and the private residential curtilage of ‘Crowts’ (a Listed Building).

Nature Conservation and Biodiversity

5.26 The developer shall carry out a comprehensive ecological survey to identify rare, declining or otherwise protected flora, fauna and habitat within the site and will introduce appropriate measures, as part of his landscape strategy, to protect and improve the site’s natural habitats, in consultation with English Nature and the Surrey Wildlife Trust (or equivalent organisations).

5.27 Development proposals shall incorporate biodiversity benefits which will contribute towards meeting targets agreed in the Surrey Biodiversity Action Plan.

5.28 A desk-top study of the archaeological potential of the re-development area should be carried out as part of any development proposals.

5.29 As there may be some residual contamination resulting from the historical uses of the site, the developer should liaise with the Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officers and the Environment Agency.

5.30 A financial contribution relating to any identified need for additional education facilities in the area generated by the proposed development will be required based upon discussions between the developer and Surrey County Council regarding the level of the contribution which would be the subject of a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.

5.31 These development principles assist in bringing forward the preferred disposition of uses across the site including the adjoining retained NHS Trust uses. They are shown on Plan E and future planning applications should follow the broad concepts outlined on that plan.


6.1 The principal relevant policies in the Local Plan are described in Sections 4, above.

6.2 For ease of reference, those referred to are:

General: Policies D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D12, D13 and D14.
Countryside: Policy C7.
Housing: Policies H4, H5, H7 and H10.
Community Facilities: Policy CF2.
Industry and Commerce: Policy IC12.
Leisure and Tourism: Policy LT11.
Rural Development: Policy: RD6
Movement: Policies M2, M4, M5, M9, M10 and M14.

6.3 Please note that the above list is not definitive; there may be other Development Plan Policies or Supplementary Planning Guidance that are of relevance to the development of this site.


7.1 (A list of appropriate contacts at Waverley BC, Surrey CC and statutory undertakers will be inserted in the adopted version of the SPG)


comms/council/2002/03/078 33942