| Policy | Waverley Borough Council’s comments on the Structure Plan Second Deposit Draft | Changes suggested by Waverley BC | Surrey County Council’s response to Waverley’s comments |
| LO1 - The Location of Development | There is no clear link between the sustainability objectives set out in the introductory chapter and the policies themselves. It would be beneficial if a ‘keynote’ sustainability were introduced establishing a firm sustainable foundation. | Add an additional paragraph at the beginning of LO1: “Planning authorities will seek to maintain and improve the quality of life within Surrey without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and to provide for homes, jobs, infrastructure and services without undermining the value of the built and natural environment.” | Disagree. The suggested change is unnecessary. The introductory chapter and diagram on page 11 refers to the way in which the Structure Plan relates, as a whole, to the objectives of sustainable development.
No change to Plan. |
| LO1 | There is no clear indication in the document that policies themselves have been subject to an Environmental Appraisal. | Undertake an Environmental Appraisal of the Plan to assess its environmental impact. | A Sustainability Appraisal has been carried out and was published alongside the draft Structure Plan. The Sustainability Appraisal included environmental objectives as well as economic and social objectives.
No change to Plan. |
LO4 – The Metropolitan Green Belt and
LO5 – The Countryside | These policies remain confusing and are likely to create serious problems in implementation. | a) Include 2 distinct policies in the Structure Plan, one for Green Belt with its genesis in PPG2 (with specific reference to Major Developed Sites) and one for countryside beyond the Green Belt with its genesis in PPG7
b) The policies should ensure that reference to re-use and adaptation of buildings both in the Green Belt and in the Countryside Beyond the GB should require that the building to be retained is capable of retention/re-use without substantial reconstruction or enlargement. | Disagree. This implies that the Metropolitan Green Belt is not countryside whereas PPG7 advice should relate to all countryside with additional measures applicable if that countryside is also designated as Green Belt.
Reference to the nature of existing buildings is a detailed matter covered in Local Plan policies.
No change to Plan. |
| DN9 – General Aviation | a) Supplementary Planning Guidance to be prepared by Waverley Borough Council will deal with the question of the future of Dunsfold Aerodrome, including flying activity.
b) Paragraph 4.28 of Policy DN9 of the Structure Plan implies that flying activities of the aerodrome are a discreet use, whereas they are ancillary to the use of the aerodrome for the “assembly, repair and flight testing of aircraft”.
| As the Structure Plan gives an inaccurate indication of the true position regarding activities at Dunsfold Aerodrome and as the future of the aerodrome, including any potential flying activities will be fully covered in the SPG, it is felt that the specific and positive references to re-using the site for light aviation should be omitted from both Policy DN9 and the accompanying text. | Disagree. The policy reflects the County Council’s view on what is considered to be the most suitable use for the site.
Accept that the granting of planning permission for light aviation would require a change of use from the current sui generis use applicable to the site, which is for the assembly, repair and flight testing of aircraft, as granted in April 2002.
Although some impact on local populations is likely to be inevitable, the aerodrome is one of the remotest large sites in Surrey. Therefore the numbers of people affected would be relatively small. In addition, planning conditions to control the nature and type of flying would limit the impact on surrounding areas.
The use of Dunsfold for light aviation would comply with Govt. guidance in PPG13. This advises that local authorities should, where appropriate, protect disused sites which could help to enhance aviation infrastructure serving the regional and local area.
The Govt. has stated that business aviation may become squeezed out of major airports, as capacity constraints cause these airports to focus on more valuable commercial traffic. As business traffic is forced to relocate to general aviation fields, this in turn is likely to have a knock-on effect for light aviation, which may be squeezed out of general aviation airfields. Dunsfold aerodrome could therefore provide a vital role in providing for the light aviation community in future.
No change to Plan. |