The Government Inspector has completed her report on the Future Mole Valley Local plan and on October 15th MVDC will meet to decide on whether it will adopt the Plan incorporating the 92 major modifications recommended by the Inspector. There are items that we raised with the Inspector that do not appear to have been fully taken into account, in part due some of them having been challenged by MVDC to our disappointment.
We are requesting that Local Bookham Counsellors who will be attending the Council Meeting take account of the matters that we remain concerned about when speaking to the motion to adopt the Plan and in how they vote.
The key points within the Inspector’s recommendations include:
A change to the plan period (from 2037 to 2039) with a consequent change in the housing target from 353 new homes per year to 336 new homes per year of which 7% will be in Bookham i.e. a total of 513 additional dwellings by 2039.
A requirement to review the plan after three years
Changes to the climate change policies to reflect changes in national and county policy, such as including the requirement for developments to be zero carbon ready and updating the electric vehicle charging point requirements
Changes to the heritage policy, transport policy and flood policy to bring them into line with national policy
A revised site boundary for the Land North West of Preston Farm allocation
Whilst we anticipate that the Council will likely adopt the Plan as recommended, the government are preparing a revised National Planning Policy Framework that may have impacts on what is in the Local plan and will be a factor that will influence the Plan update in three years’ time.
We remain concerned that as a result of certain aspects, the draft Local Plan remain unsound. The key issues that we raised and do not believe have been appropriately assessed are: -
Housing allocation requirements bearing in mind the absence of an updated brownfield survey since 2017 and full consideration of the number of infill developments and buildings changing use – i.e. Bookham could meet housing targets without developing on current Green Belt land.
Traffic generation. We do not accept as credible Surrey CC’s view, that the increased traffic resulting from major housing development here and in Effingham is acceptable. To suggest that the planned housing developments in the area will not generate unsustainable additional traffic movements flies in the face of reality.
Chalk streams. MVDC rejected the fact that new surveys on chalk streams had been undertaken and we now understand that Natural England, who hadn’t then concluded that there were further chalk streams around and across Preston Farm, have received the new survey reports from SE Rivers Trust and are likely to amend their plan to incorporate the ones we notified the Inspector. The chalk streams do exist and the consequences of that should be properly considered.
Drainage and sewerage. We note that there has been some tentative acknowledgement of flooding and sewerage issues, but we feel that these need to be stronger as water problems have increased in recent years and are anticipated to get worse.
On infrastructure, the need for school space and medical facilities may need reviewing especially in light of current uncertainty of Howard Of Effingham currently and in the event of Wisley being built.
We ask that our MP pursues the Inspectorate to explain why these matters have not been properly assessed.
