Appendix F - Core Strategy & Development Management Policies ...

Appendix F - Core Strategy & Development Management Policies DPD Options 

– Residents Association Letters & List 

64

Appendix G – SANGS Issues & Options – Consultation Lists 

Specific & General Bodies 

Mrs 

Sandy Fisher Bisley Parish Council 

Mr S Bailey Blackwater Valley Countryside Partnership 

Ms M Baker Bracknell Forest Borough Council 

Mr JC Chaney Chobham Parish Council 

Mr Rob Sanderson Defence Estates 

Mr 

Steve Williams English Heritage (South East Region) 

English Rural Housing Association 

Mr Ian Davie Environment Agency 

Ms S Cartwright Frimley Green, Mytchett & Deepcut Society 

Frimley Green Residents Society 

Mrs A Taylor 

Mr I Dunsford GOSE 

Ms T Haskins Guildford Borough Council 

Hampshire County Council 

Mr D Hawes Hart District Council 

Homes and Communities Agency 

Mytchett, Frimley Green & Deepcut Society 

Ms H Twizell Natural England 

Ms H Dennison RSPB (South East Office) 

Mr A Hunter Runnymede Borough Council 

Ms Jane Davis Rural Housing Trust 

Ms K Bailey Rushmoor Borough Council 

South East England Partnership Board 

Mr 

Roger Hargreaves Surrey County Council 

Mr R Evans Surrey County Council - Planning Implementation Team 

Mr S Newall Surrey Wildlife Trust 

Mr P Hitchen The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 

Ms G Molony Waverley Borough Council 

Mrs 

Yvonne Johnson West End Parish Council 

Mr TRS Price Windlesham Parish Council 

Ms 

Kathy O'Leary Woking Borough Council 

Mr J Dunning Wokingham Borough Council 

66

Neighbouring Properties 

1A 

The Ridgewood Centre 

Old Bisley 

Road 

33 Old Bisley Road Frimley Camberley 




























Annexe At 95 Old Bisley Road Frimley 

Flat 

Pine Ridge Golf Centre 

Old Bisley 

Road 

Gatehouse 

The Ridgewood Centre 

Old Bisley 

Road 

Kirkdale 29 Old Bisley Road Frimley 

Land Adjoining 95 Old Bisley Road Frimley 

Pine Ridge Golf Centre Old Bisley Road Frimley 

Ravenscote Community Junior 

School Old Bisley Road Frimley 

Ravenscote County Junior School Old Bisley Road Frimley 

The Ridgewood Centre Old Bisley Road Frimley 

DUNEDIN BELLEW ROAD DEEPCUT 

LAKE HURST LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

WOODCOT LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

CLOVELLY LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

PINEVIEW LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

MALLEN LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

HOLLY COTTAGE LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

COMPTON LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

BEECHBANK LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

PINEWOOD COTTAGE BELLEW ROAD DEEPCUT 

67

TOAD HALL BELLEW ROAD DEEPCUT 

CEDAR LODGE NURSING HOME 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

BALLYDOWN LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

LAKELAND HOUSE LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

FOUR ACRES LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

LONGWOOD COTTAGE LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

LONGWOOD LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

BRIONY LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

THE WHITE HOUSE LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

NARANDA LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

ALBAN LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

HEATHERSIDE COTTAGE LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 

10 QUEENSWAY FRIMLEY GREEN CAMBERLEY 












HOLLY LODGE NURSING HOME 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

THE RED HOUSE LAKE ROAD DEEPCUT 



MIMOSA 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

THREE OAKS 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

1 LANSDOWNE ROAD FRIMLEY CAMBERLEY 

2 LANSDOWNE ROAD FRIMLEY CAMBERLEY 

LING HOUSE 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

THE GRANGE 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

OAKWOOD 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

WOODACRE 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

9 ELY CLOSE FRIMLEY CAMBERLEY 


BLAKENEY 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

LYNWOOD 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

REFLECTIONS 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

THE DARROCH 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

THEODORA 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

68

ASHMORE COTTAGE 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

ARAGON 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 

CUMBERLAND 

ST CATHERINES 

ROAD 

FRIMLEY 



Landowners 

Mr Pain 

c/o Simmonds 

and Sons 32 Bell Street Henley-on-Thames 

Mr Hull RPS Mallams Court 18 Milton Park Abingdon Oxfordshire 

Mrs Murray 

2A Hampshire 

Road Camberley GU15 4DW 

Mr Lynwood Crown Golf Pyrford Golf Club Warren Lane Pyrford Surrey 

Ms Terence 

Deansleigh 

Southwood O'Rourke 

Everdene House Road Bournemouth 

Previous Respondents to Options DPD 

Title 

Name 

ATIS Real 

Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP on behalf of Wilky Fund Management 

Blackwater Valley Friends of the Earth 

CAMRA/Surrey 

Chobham Commons Preservation Committee 

Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment 

CPRE (Surrey Heath Branch) 

Energy Saving Trust 

Gerald Eve on behalf of Albermarle Fairoaks Ltd & Royal Bank of Scotland 

GVA Grimley 

Highways Agency 

Indigo Planning on behalf of McKay Securities Group 

Leigh & Glennie on behalf of The Shorstan Company Ltd 

Leigh & Glennie on behalf of V Segalini 

Maddox & Associates on behalf of Kier Property Developments 

MBH Partnership 

Mono Consultants Ltd on behalf of 3G UK Ltd; O2 (UK) Ltd; Orange PCS Ltd; T-mobile 

UK Ltd; Vodaphone Ltd 

Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners on behalf of Tesco Stores Limited 

Oxford Strategic Marketing 

Paragon Community Housing Group 

Planning Committee of Showmen's Guild LHC 

Rail Estate 

Redrow Homes 

RPS Planning & Development on behalf of Costco Wholesale UK Limited 

Savills Commercial Ltd on behalf of The Mall Corporation 

Savills on behalf of Fairoaks Airport Limited 

SEEDA 

Southwell Park Residents Association 

Sport England 

Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust 

69

Miss A 

Miss 

Hazel 

Mr A 

Mr B 

Mr B 

Mr C G 

Mr C J F 

Mr D 

Mr E 

Mr E 

Mr G 

Mr I 

Mr J 

Mr M 

Mr M 

Mr M 

Mr M 

Mr Mark 

Mr R 

Mr R 

Mr RW 

Mr S 

Mr S 

Mr S 

Mr WS 

Mrs M 

Mrs R 

Ms C 

Ms L 

Ms M 

Ms S 

Ms S 

Ms V 

Terence O'Rourke - Bournemouth 

Thames Water Property Services 

The Camberley Society 

The Theatres Trust 

Vail Williams LLP on behalf of Frimley Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 

Hook 

Prowse 

Channell 

Baverstock 

Burge 

Anthony 

Pavey 

Peebles 

Bain 

Hill 

Consterdine 

Phillips 

Pearman 

Bedwell 

Grey 

Swaenpoel 

Wells 

Jones 

Harrison 

Short 

Couzens 

Baker 

Cresswell 

Hart 

Ivens 

Consterdine 

Baker 

Morley 

Stewart 

Melrose 

May 

Owen 

Muir 

Other Stakeholders 

A & B Construction 

7 Aspin Way 

A2 Dominion Housing 

Chilsey House 

Accent Peerless Ltd 

Station House 

Alfred McAlpine 

Cygnus House 

Alliance Environment & Planning 

Wharf House 

Amex Holdings Ltd Unit 5 

Arcadia Ventures 

The Old Exchange 

Ardent Property and Planning Ltd 

Parallel House 

Arena Properties Ltd 

The Orchards 

70

Arqiva 

Ashgate Ltd 

Atkinson Bray 

Bagshot Society 

Baker Davidson Thomas 

Crawley Court 

Laburnam House 

Quatro House 

Bancroft Developments 

Stratfield House 

Barratt Southern Counties 

Barratt House 

Bell Cornwell Partnership 

Oakview House 

Bellway Estates 

Bellway House 

Bisley Property Co. Ltd Unit 2 

Bob Potter Leisure Ltd 

Boyer Planning 

Broadway Malyan Planning 

Building Design and Surveying Consultancy 

Cala Homes 

Castlemore Surveyors 

Groveland House 

3 Weybridge Business Park 

Melrose Farm 

Burgan House 

CBRE 

Charles Church Southern 

Crest Nicholson 

Crown Estate Office 

Cunnane Town Planning 

DL Brickwork Building & Carpentary Contractors 

Ltd 

Charles Church House 

Crest House 

16 Carlton House Terrace 

69 Stratmore Road 

Unit 4-5 Enterprise Estate 

Frimley Community Association 

Frimley Designs & Surveys 

George Wimpey Southern Ltd 

Gleeson Homes 

Hanover Housing Association 

Haus Design & Build Ltd 

Home Builders Federation 

Home Design Services 

Housing Corporation 

Templars House 

Russint House 

Hanover House 

The Studio Hayloft 

1st Floor, Byron House 

149 Tottenham Court Road 

Hyde Housing Association 

Estate Office, CDHA, Lydon 

House 

Kier property Ltd 

Kingfisher Housing Association 

Chailey Court 

Laing 

Tyrell House, Challenge Court 

71

Leigh & Glennie 

Lennon Planning 

London & Quadrant Housing Trust 

Lovell 

M P Building Plans Ltd 

Mansard Country Homes Ltd 

Metropolitan Housing Trust 

MGA Town Planning & Development 

Consultants 

MIG Building Design Consultancy 

Suites 1.5 & 1.6 Doncastle 

House 

Mansard House 

CWU House 

7 High View Road 

c/o 58 Weymede 

Miller Homes 

Moat Housing Society 

Persimmon Homes South East Ltd 

R G Mole & Co Ltd 

Redrow Homes (Southern) 

Roger Tym & Partners 

Spinnaker House 

St Johns House 

Persimmon House 

Redrow House 

Fairfax House 

Schofield Homes Ltd 

Crowthorne Enterprise Centre 

SecondSite Property Holdings Ltd 

Sentinel Housing Association 

Aviary Court 

Lismoyne House 

SHA Estates South East 

7th Floor, New Kings Beam 

House 

Stonham Housing Association 

10 Bath Road 

Surrey Community Development Trust 

Swan Hill Homes Ltd 

Taylor Wimpey 

Thames Valley Housing Association 

UK Land Investment Group 

Vail Williams LLP 

Swan Court 

10 Howard Crescent 

Premier House 

Berkeley House 

Quatro House 

West End Action Group 

72

Wey Valley Homes 

West End Village Society 

Heatherside Community Association 

Bisley Residents Association 

Surrey Chambers of Commerce Ltd 

Grayswood 

32 Glassonby Walk 

Head of Policy & 

Representation 

Peter Bassett Deepcut Stakeholder 

Michael Brydges Deepcut Stakeholder 

Jane Cadby Deepcut Stakeholder 

Pauline Collins Deepcut Stakeholder 

Peter Cureton Deepcut Stakeholder 

John Curtis Deepcut Stakeholder 

Paul Deach Deepcut Stakeholder 

Carol Drew Deepcut Stakeholder 

Martin Fly Deepcut Stakeholder 

Miranda Greenway Deepcut Stakeholder 

Howard Hyde Deepcut Stakeholder 

Angela Mitchell Deepcut Stakeholder 

David Parsons Deepcut Stakeholder 

Betty Phillips Deepcut Stakeholder 

David Rushmer Deepcut Stakeholder 

Melanie Sharp Deepcut Stakeholder 

Steven Knight Deepcut Stakeholder 

73

Appendix H – SANGS Issues & Options web-page 

75

Appendix I – Deepcut Community Engagement Questionnaire & Address Points 

DEEPCUT QUESTIONNAIRE 

A survey to help formulate a community vision for the future 

development at Deepcut, Surrey Heath 

77

This questionnaire is also available to fill in and submit online at 

www.surreyheath.gov.uk/forms/default.htmmode=10&sid=213&pid=593 

In early 2008 the Minister of State for the Armed Forces issued a statement declaring that The 

Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut would no longer be needed by the military after 2013. The 

Minister expected the site to accommodate a significant amount of housing. The Council now has 

to determine what future role Deepcut will play in the borough and what form the new 

development will take. 

A vision for the future development of Deepcut and the Barracks site is now being sought. As part 

of this work the Council is seeking to understand what the community feels the future character 

and shape of the new Deepcut should look like. This survey is part of that process. 

Surrey Heath Borough Council would be grateful if you could answer the following multiple choice 

questions. Any additional information or comment you would like to provide will be gratefully 

received and many of the questions leave space for elaboration. 

Thank you for your help. 

Please return completed questionnaires to Surrey Heath Borough Council 

by 29 th May 2009. 

The following options are available for returning the questionnaire: 

By Hand: i) box in Contact Centre of Surrey Heath House 

Knoll Road 

Camberley 

Surrey GU15 3HD 

ii) 

box in Deepcut Village Centre 

Cyprus Road 

Deepcut 

GU16 6TB 

By FREEPOST: 

Business Reply Licence Number CJM37 

Deepcut Vision Questionnaire 

Planning Policy 

Surrey Heath Borough Council 

Surrey Heath House 

Knoll Road 

Camberley 

Surrey GU15 3HD 

By Email: 

planning.policy@surreyheath.gov.uk 

Online form: www.surreyheath.gov.uk/forms/default.htmmode=10&sid=213&pid=593 

78

Please contact us if you would like this questionnaire in 

another format such as Large Print. 

Section 1: About You 

The questions below are to aid our monitoring of equal opportunities. The Council wishes to make sure that 

it delivers quality services to the whole community, whatever their race, gender, age, disability, sexual 

orientation, gender identity, religion or faith. To help us do this, and for that reason only, please answer 

these questions, although it will not affect your response if you choose not to supply this information. 

All information that you provide will be treated in confidence and in accordance with the Data Protection Act 

1998. 

1. What are your interests in Deepcut (please tick as many boxes as apply) 

Live in Deepcut 

Work in Deepcut 

I have a professional interest in Deepcut 

Recreation and or leisure activities in Deepcut 

Shop and/or obtain services in Deepcut 

2. What age group do you fall into 

Under 12 

12 - 17 

18 – 30 

31 – 45 

46 – 64 

65 – 79 

80+ 

3. What gender are you 

Male 

Female 

4. Which ethnic group do you consider you belong to 

Bangladeshi 

Indian 

Pakistani 

Other Asian background 

African 

Caribbean 

Other Black Background 

Chinese 

Mixed White and Asian 

Mixed White and Black African 

Mixed White and Black Caribbean 

Other Mixed Background 

White British 

Irish 

79

Other White Background 

Other 

Prefer not to answer 

5. The religion/faith I practice is: 

Christian 

Muslim 

Sikh 

Hindu 

Buddhist 

Jewish 

Other religion 

No religion 

6. Do you have a disability (Disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment which 

has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal day to day 

activities.) 

Yes 

No 

Section 2: Existing Character of Deepcut 

7. How far do you agree that Deepcut is a rural village 

Strongly agree 

Agree 

Neither agree or disagree 

Disagree 

Strongly disagree 

8. Which of the following do you think contributes to the character of Deepcut (Please 

tick as many boxes as apply) 

Good community spirit 

Lots of community activities and events 

Rural character 

Suburban character 

Urban character 

Settlement layout has a mixed character 

Within close proximity to lots of natural open space 

Lots of space around buildings 

Large amount of recreation space and play areas 

Rural location 

Part of rural area to south and east of Deepcut 

Part of urban area associated with Camberley, Frimley Green and Mytchett 

Heathland setting 

Woodland setting 

Military activity 

80

Within close proximity to Basingstoke Canal 

Area of employment 

Village shops 

Low density housing 

High density housing 

Small scale buildings 

Large scale housing 

Good quality buildings 

Important historic character 

Poor public transport 

None of these 

Don’t know 

Other (please specify below) 

9. There are many monuments, sculptures, buildings and open spaces in Surrey Heath 

that are important to residents. Are there any such features in Deepcut that you 

would like to see retained If yes, please describe them and indicate where they 

are located in the space below. 

10. Do you think Deepcut has good links to public transport 

Yes 

No 

Don’t know 

11. Do you think there is good access to Deepcut by road 

Yes 

No 

Don’t know 

12. Which of the below do you consider Deepcut to be within easy cycling 

distance of 

81

Heatherside local shops and centre 

Camberley Town Centre 

Frimley Green Shops 

Brookwood Railway Station 

Farnborough North Railway Station 

Frimley Shops 

None of these 

Don’t know 

Section 3: Future Role and Form of Deepcut 

13. What opportunities do you think the redevelopment of the Princess Royal Barracks 

would present (Please select just the one that applies) 

To bolt a major housing development onto the existing village 

To bolt the existing village onto the major new housing development 

To blend and reshape Deepcut to create an entirely new settlement. 

14. What do you think the future settlement at Deepcut should be 

A rural village 

A housing estate 

An extension to the urban areas of Camberley, Frimley, Frimley Green and Mytchett 

Don’t know 


15. Where do you feel that a developed Deepcut would most naturally link 

Would be stand-alone 

Heatherside 

Frimley 

Frimley Green 

Mytchett 

Camberley 

Rural communities to the east (West End, Bisley and Chobham) 

Don’t know 


82

Section 4: Future character of Deepcut 

16. How far do you agree that the new settlement needs a focal point and heart 


Agree 


Disagree 


17. How do you think the new settlement should be made up 

It should be dominated by the landscape 

It should dominate the landscape 

It should have a mixed relationship with the landscape 

Don’t know 

18. What height do you think the future buildings at Deepcut should be 

A mix of smaller scale buildings (less than 3 storeys in height) 

Predominantly smaller scale buildings, with a few buildings 3 storeys or more 

Predominantly larger scale buildings (3 storeys and more) 

19. How far do you agree that future housing at Deepcut should be a similar character 

and scale to the recent development at Dettingen Park 


Agree 


Disagree 


20. What architectural style would you like to see in Deepcut 

Contemporary/modern (Often with clean lines and large amounts of glazing) 

Historic (buildings that strongly reflect historic styles e.g. Tudor, Victorian, Edwardian) 

Estate (A mixture of styles - cost, convenience and size dominating building appearance) 

21. What type of houses would you like to see in the new settlement (please tick all that 

apply) 

83

Detached houses 

Semi-detached houses 

Terrace houses 

Flats 


22. What size of housing do you think is needed in Deepcut (please tick all that apply) 

1 & 2 bedroom flats 

1 & 2 bedroom houses with gardens 

Apartments with 3 or more bedrooms 

3 bedroom houses with gardens 

4 bedroom or more houses with gardens 

23. What age group do you think the new settlement at Deepcut should provide for 

(Please tick all that apply) 

Older residents (70+) 

Families with young children 

Families with teenage children 

Young couples 

Singles 


24. How far do you agree that the settlement at Deepcut should provide a home for 

people on a wide range of incomes 


Agree 


Disagree 


84

25. What do you think the approach to future development at Deepcut should 

be 

Quality (a strong emphasis on providing high quality buildings and surroundings) 

Cost (a strong emphasis on providing low cost buildings and surroundings) 

Maintaining as high a quality as possible while keeping costs down 

26. What features would you like to see in any future settlement at Deepcut (Please 

tick all that apply) 

Heathland setting 

Military activity 

Facilities for young people 

Facilities for older people 

Within close proximity to Basingstoke Canal 

Landscaping 

Homes for low income families 

Large amount of recreation space and play areas 

Urban street lighting 

Rural lighting schemes 

Public art 

Employment area 

Village Green 

Sustainable buildings 

A primary school 

A nursery school 

Allotments 

Church 

Supermarket 

Pub 

Good network of footpaths, cycle ways and bridle ways 

Creation of new bodies of water e.g. lakes and ponds 

Retaining important historic character 

Parking within the boundary of properties 


85

If you live in Deepcut, Please answer questions 27 to 30 below. If you do not live in Deepcut 

please skip to Question 31. 

27. Please identify any of the destinations below that you would travel to in an average 

week and how you would travel there (please tick all that apply) 

Destination 

Central London 

Please tick if 

you travel to in 

an average 

week 

Please tick if 

you use public 

transport to 

travel to these 

destinations 

Please indicate how you get to each 

destination (e.g. walk then bus, cycle then 

train, car then train) 

Camberley 

Frimley 

Frimley Green 

Mytchett 

Chobham 

Bagshot 

Windlesham 

Bisley 

Aldershot 

Farnborough 

Ash 

Guildford 

Woking 

Bracknell 

Sunningdale 

Other (please specify) 

86

28. How far do you agree that if the bus service to Deepcut was significantly improved 

you would use it 


Agree 


Disagree 


Don’t know 

Not relevant 

If you are not currently working, please skip to question 31 

29. What is the location of your workplace 

30. How do you travel to and from your workplace (Please tick all that apply) 

Walk 

Cycle 

Car 

Bus 

Train 


87

Section 5: Other 

31. Is there anything you do not like about Deepcut that you would like to see changed 

Yes (please specify below) 

No 

Don’t know 

32. Are there any recreational facilities you would like to see in Deepcut 


No 

Don’t know 

33. Are there any buildings in Deepcut that you consider to be publicly valuable and 

would like to see retained 


No 

Don’t know 

88

34. Are there any open spaces in Deepcut that you consider to be publicly valuable and 

would like to see retained 


No 

Don’t know 

35. Where do you think the centre of the future Deepcut should be 

36. Which of the following activities do you think should be included in this focal point 

(Please tick all that apply) 

Pub 

School 

Nursery school 

Facilities for young people 

Facilities for older people 

Church 

Shops 

Supermarket 

Café/restaurant/takeaway etc 

Employment uses 

Housing 

Village hall/centre 

Green 

Other types of open space 

Public art 

Parking 

89

If you have any other comments please e-mail planning.policy@surreyheath.gov.uk or 

telephone 01276 707100 

Address Point Map 

90

Appendix J – Deepcut Questionnaire Press Release 

91

Appendix K – Deepcut Community Event Postcard and Stakeholder List 

92

Stakeholder List – Deepcut Community Engagement 

Group 

Accent Peerless Housing Association 

Annington Homes 

Basingstoke Canal Authority 

Main Contact 

Adrian Redmond 

Peter Clarke 

Ian Brown 

BDW Trading Limited 

British Telecom 

BT Openreach 

Church of England 

Commonwealth War Graves 

Commission 

CPRE Surrey 

Defence Estates 

English Heritage 

Environment Agency 

Fire & Rescue Service 

Guildford Borough Council 

Highways Agency 

Natural England 

NHS Surrey 

Pirbright Parish Council 

Pirbright Ward Councillor 

Royal College of Logistics and Personal 

Administration 

Rural Dean of Surrey Heath 

SCC – Education 

SCC – Conservation 

SCC – County Highway Authority 

SCC – Planning 

SCC – Rights of Way team 

Scotia Gas Networks 

Scottish and Southern Power 

SHBC Arts and Leisure 

SHBC Corporate Policy 

SHBC Councillors for Mytchett and 

Deepcut 


Deepcut 

The Archdeacon of Surrey 

Carl Liversage 

Sarah Clayton 

John Taylor 

David Brock 

Derek Baker 

Inspector Holly Davey 

Tracey Haskins 

Garry Frostick 

Heather Twizell 

Shelley Eugene 

Clerk to the Council - Mrs Lindsay Graham 

Cllr Michael Nevins 

Major Pat Allen 

The Revd Andrew Body 

Mark Burton 

Martin Higgins 

Mike Green 

Richard Evans 

James Taylor 

Jenna Keys 

Jon Tilley 

Nick Mowat 

Joanna Hardy 

Cllr Mike Drew 

Cllr Craig Fennell 

93


Deepcut 

SHBC Environmental Health 

SHBC Housing 

SHBC Parks and Countryside 

Sport England 

Surrey and Hampshirte Canal Society 

Surrey Chambers of Commerce 

Surrey Police 

Surrey Wildlife Trust 

Sustrans 

TAG Farnborough Airport Ltd 

Thames Water 

Transport for Surrey Heath (LSP Sub- 

Group) 

Cllr David Whitcroft 

Derek Gutteridge 

Clive Jinman 

Leigh Thornton 

Vicky Astin 

Philip Riley 

Pauline Hedges 

Inspector James Norbury 

Ken Anckorn 

Mr C Stone 

Mark Dickinson 

Chas Bradfield 

Virgin Media 

West End Parish Council 

Mrs Yvonne Johnson 

Kushido (karate group) 

Kumon Frimley (supplementary education group) 

GKR (karate group) 

Bahai's Group (religion and charity group) 

Rosemary Conelly Group 

Deepcut WI Group 

Pilates Group 

Mr J Dolbear 

Mrs J Marston 

Mr P Ancott 

Mr F Rahim 

Mrs S Tuson 

Mrs Lynne Wilson 

Ms Tracey Turner 

Group 

Heatherside Community Association 

Deepcut Residents Group 

The Abbeyfield, Pirbright and District Society 

Mytchett, Frimley Green and Deepcut Society 

Pirbright Laboratory Residents Association 

Group 

Heatherside Church 

St Paul's Church 

Bengali Welfare Association 

Surrey Heath Muslim Association 

Nepalese Prayer & Community Hall 

Nepalese Prayer & Community Hall 

Main Contact 

Mrs P Parry 

Paul Deach 

Ms S Cartwright 

Geoff Pero 

Type 

Religious / Ethnic Minority - Christian 

Religious / Ethnic Minority - Christian 

Religious / Ethnic Minority - Muslim 

Religious / Ethnic Minority - Muslim 

Religious / Ethnic Minority - Nepalese 

Religious / Ethnic Minority - Nepalese 

94

Age Concern Frimley and Camberley 

Centres & Facilities (Day Care Centres for Older People) 

Tomlinscote Schools Students 

Tomlinscote Schools Students 

SH Youth Council 

Surrey Coalition of Disabled People 

Disability Initiative 

Disability Access Surrey Heath (DASH) 

Disability Access Surrey Heath (DASH) 

Surrey Women's Aid 

Women's Institute 

Gay Surrey 

Voluntary Services 

Older People 

Older People 

Young People 

Young People 

Young People 

Disability 

Disability 

Disability 

Disability 

Gender 

Gender 

LGBT 

Miscellaneous 

Type 

Infant School 

Junior School 

Infant School 

Primary School 

Secondary School 



Junior School 



Infant School 

Primary / 

Secondary 

Infant School 



Junior School 


Junior School 

Infant School 

Name 

Sandringham School 

Frimley CofE Junior School 

Cross Farm Infant School 

Mytchett Primary School 

Tomlinscote School and Sixth Form College 

Lakeside Primary School 

St Augustine's Catholic Primary School 

Ravenscote Community Junior School 

The Grove Primary School 

Carwarden House Community School 

North Farnborough Infant School 

Henry Tyndale School 

Heather Ridge Infant School 

St Patrick's Catholic Primary School 

Farnborough Hill 

St Peter's CofE Aided Junior School 

Holly Lodge Primary School 

South Farnborough Junior School 

Prior Heath Infant School 

95

Appendix L – Deepcut Community Engagement – Press Release 

96

Appendix M – Responses to Options DPD consultation, SANGS Issues and 

Options Consultation & Deepcut Questionnaire Consultation 

Core Strategy & Development Management Policies DPD Options – Responses to 

Consultation & Officer Responses presented to LDFWG August 2009. 

Annex 1 

Key Messages from the Core Strategy & Development Management 

Policies Options Consultation with Officer Responses 

Core Strategy 

General 

English Heritage felt that greater consistency was required between the vision, objectives and 

approach CP1 with regard to the historic environment. 

[Officer Comments: Agreed to apply greater consistency between vision, objectives and CP1] 

Natural England pointed out that a Habitats Regulations Assessment will be required. They 

also requested that Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats are mapped along with Sites of 

Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI’s), local nature reserves, landscape designations and 

natural green spaces. 

[Officer Comments: Designations to be mapped on proposals map where appropriate at presubmission 

stage. Current draft HRA to be updated] 

Thames Water requested that the designation of countryside and the Blackwater Strategic 

Gap between the A331 and Camberley Sewerage Treatment Works is relaxed. 

[Officer Comments: Access to sewerage treatment works do not necessarily require a 

relaxation of designations, however this issue is best left to a Site Allocations DPD] 

Vail Williams on behalf of Frimley Park Hospital Trust wish to have the land designated as 

‘Area of Urban Landscape Quality’ and ‘Green Spaces within Settlements’ removed from the 

proposals map to the immediate west of the hospital site. 

[Officer Comments: The land designations specified will be reviewed as part of the Site 

Allocations DPD and amended if necessary] 

Terrence O’Rourke on behalf of Crown Golf stated that some land at Pine Ridge Golf Centre 

could be released for housing. 

[Officer Comments: If housing capacity work at Deepcut and the results of the strategic 

housing land availability assessment identify insufficient land, then consideration will have to 

be given to the release of reserve sites, greenfield locations and in exceptional circumstances 

Green Belt] 

A number of representations also raised concerns over the allocation of the former DERA 

site, Chertsey in the South East Plan (SEP). 

[Officer Comments: The majority of the site lies within Runnymede Borough. SHBC will be 

working closely with Runnymede to ensure that any development is considered appropriately] 

Vision 

Of the 44 responses received: - 

97

73% supported/agreed with option 1 (preferred approach) 

11% agreed with option 2 

16% gave no preference but made general comments on what should be contained in the 

vision. 

One response stated that the new vision provides no reference to the private sector and 

another that no references are made to community infrastructure. 

[Officer Comments: The vision is a generic statement of where Surrey Heath should be by the 

end of the plan period. It is recognised that in order to deliver the vision, the private sector will 

have a role to play, however it is for the individual policy approaches or objectives to identify 

key partners and stakeholders for delivery not the vision itself. References to community 

Infrastructure to be considered] 

Objectives 

Of 50 responses received: - 

68% supported/agreed with option 1 (preferred approach) 


16% gave no preference but made comments on the wording of objectives 

Spatial Strategy & CP7 (Housing Distribution) 



46% agreed with options 2a & 2b (preferred approach) 




25% gave no preference but made comments on the possible policy wording 

It should be noted that of the 59 responses received 29% of respondents stated that they did 

not wish to see development of the housing reserve sites or a review of the Green Belt. 

Specifically there was strong opposition against the housing reserve sites in West End. 

[Officer Comments: It is currently the local planning authority's preferred approach to direct 

development towards the western area of the borough with the identification of strategic 

locations at Deepcut and Camberley Town Centre. However, the local planning authority may 

have to review its spatial strategy following capacity work at Deepcut and the results of the 

strategic housing land availability assessment (SHLAA). If insufficient land is identified then 

the local planning authority will have to consider the release of reserve sites, greenfield 

locations or in exceptional circumstances Green Belt. The West End reserve sites have been 

held in reserve since around 1983 and as such their potential to come forward for 

development has been considered since this time] 

1 response stated that Deepcut Barracks should be returned to a Green Belt designation. 

[Officer Comments: Failure to recognise Deepcut as a strategic location would mean allowing 

a large former MOD site to remain derelict and vacant and would not secure its long term 

future or bring about any development in a planned and co-ordinated manner] 

98

There was strong support for not amending Green Belt boundaries, although one comment 

received stated that amended Green Belt boundaries close to settlements should be utilised 

for affordable housing. 

[Officer Comments: Greenfield sites for 100% affordable housing are exception sites and a 

policy approach to this is outlined in DM13. Given that these are 'exceptions' they will not be 

allocated as development sites] 

A response from Holy Trinity School, West End stated that they did not have the infrastructure 

to allow for increased pupil numbers. 

[Officer Comments: The local planning authority are currently undertaking an infrastructure 

study to identify existing capacity and any future need as well as gaps in funding] 

Core Policy 1 – Sustainable Development & Design 


83% agreed with option 1 (preferred approach) 


11% gave no preference but made either general comments or comments on the possible 

policy wording. 

The Environment Agency stated that residential developments should be built to achieve high 

levels of water efficiency, with a target set for 105 litres per person per day. The EA also 

strongly encouraged the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS). 

[Officer Comments: Water efficiency standards will be considered. Reference to SUDS will 

also be considered] 

One response stated that a clear target should be set for development of brownfield sites. 

[Officer Comments: The approach does make reference to directing development to 

previously developed land and ensuring the best use of land] 

English Heritage wanted reference made in a policy to ‘enhancing’ the historic environment 

not just protection. 

[Officer Comments: Enhancement of historic environment as well as greater access, will be 

added] 

GOSE suggested that the policy appeared to repeat national/regional guidance, which should 

not be included if a policy is to be taken forward. 

[Officer Comments: Noted] 

Core Policy 2- Settlement Hierarchy 




14% gave no preference but made general comments 

99

One response stated that Chobham should be removed from the Green Belt. Another 

comment stated that all settlements should be appropriate for development with development 

pegged to size of the settlement. 

[Officer Comments: The policy approach to DM1 sets out that settlement areas are 

considered appropriate for development, providing it is on a scale relative the settlement 

within the hierarchy of CP2] 

Core Policy 3 – Strategic Locations for Development 





10% gave no preference, made general comments or did not support any of the options. 

Representations were received from a number of agents which sought to promote other areas 

of the borough as strategic locations, particularly the core employment areas of Yorktown, 

Admiralty Way, Watchmoor Business Park and Frimley as a whole. 

[Officer Comments: The findings of the forthcoming ELR will be used to guide the approach 

taken to existing core employment areas] 

Core Policy 4 – Movement 






21% gave no preference or made general comments 

Comments received included that better and more regular train services are required, with 

better and more affordable links to bus services serving the train stations. Comments were 

also raised that the Camberley Rail line should be improved and Surrey Heath should 

introduce quality bus partnerships for rural villages. 

[Officer Comments: Ways of delivering improvements to connectivity between areas and 

services to be set out] 

The Highways Agency has stated that modelling of junction 4 of the M3 should be undertaken 

by Surrey Heath. 


SEERA commented that the proposed submission policies could helpfully include more detail 

on how the Core strategy will implement the transport policies of the SEP. 

[Officer Comments: Policy to be aligned with aspirations of SEP] 

Core Policy 5 – Infrastructure 


100

10 agreed with option 1 



24% gave no preference, made general comments or disagreed with all options 

Parragon Housing stated they would support an approach that removed all planning 

contributions from developments of 100% affordable Housing. 

[Officer Comments: Consider exemption for affordable housing in policy approach and any 

tariff scheme] 

Redrow Homes commented that site viability must be taken into consideration. 


Surrey County Council stated that the definition of infrastructure within para 4.68 made no 

reference to waste treatment or recycling. 

[Officer Comments: Include reference to waste and recycling facilities in policy] 

Thames Water suggested that a specific policy is required for sewerage infrastructure 

capacity. 

[Officer Comments: In the absence of information or evidence from Thames Water it is 

considered that a specific sewerage infrastructure policy is not required, as a local policy on 

this topic is unlikely to add anything to emerging regional policy as proposed by the Secretary 

of State] 

A response was also submitted which stated that reference should be made to enhancing or 

expanding existing facilities, not just their protection. 

[Officer Comments: Add in ‘enhance and expand’ existing infrastructure where capacity 

issues have been identified] 

SEERA stated that the submission core strategy should identify what infrastructure is required 

and how it will be delivered. 

[Officer Comments: Surrey Heath is currently undertaking an infrastructure study to inform its 

evidence base and this will be reflected in the submission document. Consideration is also 

being given to a delivery strategy document to sit alongside the Core Strategy] 

Core Policy 6 – Scale of New Housing 






Core Policy 8 – Phasing of Housing 



101




23% gave no preference, made general comments or did not agree with any of the options 

One response stated that windfall sites should not be relied on within the first 5 years of 

housing land supply, and relying on housing delivery at the end of the plan period is contrary 

to guidance. 

[Officer Comments: Surrey Heath has particular and special circumstances, due to the time 

taken to set up SANGS provision that would warrant inclusion of windfalls within the first 5 

years of housing delivery. It is considered that allowing windfalls into the first 5 years of 

housing land supply, is at present justified and therefore not contrary to guidance] 

CP9 – Mix of Housing 

Of 37 responses received 







CP10 – Dwelling Size and Type 






Responses were raised which stated that affordable units are not just required for single 

persons but that larger units are needed as well. 

[Officer Comments: The strategic housing market assessment sets out possible ratios of 

affordable housing size and type and will have to be taken into account in any policy 

development] 

A response was put forward that the policy is unnecessary, as house builders will seek to 

satisfy the demands of the market, and that the policy is too restrictive. 

[Officer Comment: the strategic housing market assessment gives a steer to housing types 

required in the borough whether market or affordable, and this will have to be taken into 

account] 

CP11 – Affordable Housing 






102

A comment was raised which suggested that any affordable housing targets should be 

subject to viability. 

[Officers Comments: The target set must be for the longevity of the plan and not just react to 

current economic circumstances. However, the issue of viability is likely to be built into any 

policy approach, based on the Council’s evidence] 

CP12 – Mix of Affordable Housing 





CP13 – Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople 





One response stated that there should be no more than one Gypsy/Traveller site per ward, 

and no bigger than 6 pitches. There were also representations which stated that parishes 

which have already provided sites should be excluded from any further provision. 

[Officers Comments: The Core Strategy will be the document to set pitch numbers, with the 

site allocations considering specific locations for sites. The Site Allocations DPD, therefore is 

the document to explore detailed site considerations and this may mean more than one site in 

each ward if suitable sites come forward] 

Another representation stated that Surrey Heath should allocate sites now through a 

dedicated Gypsy/Traveller DPD, and not wait until a site allocations document. 

[Officer Comments: The Core Strategy & Development Management Policy DPD will be the 

document that sets out the overarching need and the criteria by which sites in the site 

allocations DPD will be assessed. It is therefore considered that a dedicated DPD would be 

premature in the absence of any guiding policies] 

CP14 – Retail Hierarchy and Role of Town Centres 





One response suggested a wider district centre boundary for Frimley, including the office 

buildings in Lyon Way. 

[Officers Comments: It will be for the site allocations DPD to consider any changes to the 

district centre boundary. In any event the Lyons Way Industrial Estate is currently defined as 

103

a Core Employment Area and as such its re-designation to a district centre is unwarranted 

and unjustified] 

There was also a response that the policy fails to provide the opportunity of identifying the 

London Road frontage in Camberley Town Centre. 

[Officers Comments: The opportunity to identify the London Road block for development is 

given by the approach to policy CP3 of the DPD. It is considered right to identify Camberley 

Town Centre as a strategic location, but devolve down the details of allocations within the 

town centre to an AAP or site allocations document. Therefore the Core Strategy is the 

document that sets the principle for redevelopment within CTC, whilst leaving the detail to 

subsequent documents] 

CP15 – Camberley Town Centre 


CTC Retail Growth options 




CTC Employment loss options 




There were a few responses which preferred a combination of options 2 & 5 (medium 

growth), rather than options 3 & 5 (high growth). 

Another representation stated that floorspace thresholds should not be included within the 

Core strategy but should be passed to the Camberley Town Centre AAP. 

[Officer Comments: the Core Strategy is the document that sets out the overarching approach 

and sets the principle for the amount of floorspace that should come forward over the plan 

period. This approach will give a clear steer to lower level documents such as the Camberley 

Town Centre AAP as to the level of growth acceptable in principle and allows the AAP to 

concentrate on more detailed matters such as allocations within the centre] 

CP16 – Employment 





One response stated that retail based employment should be recognised as economic 

development. 

SEERA suggested that at the submission stage the policy should refer to the principles of 

smart growth. 

104

[Officer Comments: Suitable references to smart growth to be included] 

CP17 – Biodiversity & Nature Conservation 






Natural England stated that there should be clearer links between the Core Strategy and the 

Thames Basin Heaths Delivery Framework. They also stated that the policy should contain 

details of how BAP targets will be delivered. 

[Officer Comments: TBH delivery framework and interim avoidance strategy to be mentioned 

in supporting text of policy. Considered that proposals map best place to set out where SPA 

mitigation is to be located, with delivery set out in a delivery plan. Agreed that policy should 

set out protection/creation of BAP habitats with reference to targets written into supporting 

text] 

A few responses were received which requested that the 400m buffer zone around the SPA 

be extended. 

[Officer Comments: The 400m buffer zone has been advised by Natural England and this has 

been adopted by all other authorities affected by the SPA] 

CP18 – Countryside 






A few responses suggested that a review of the Green Belt should take place, however the 

majority agreed that the Green Belt should be protected. 

As opposed to the preferred approach of deleting the Blackwater Valley Strategic Gap, the 

majority of respondents wished to see it remain. 

CP19 – Green Infrastructure 






One response stated that SANGS provision should be new open space and not use of 

existing. 

105

[Officer Comments: Appropriate enhancement to existing open space maybe suitable for 

SANGS provision and this should not be discounted at this stage.] 

Development Management Policies 

General Approach 


43% agreed that additional policies were not required 

57% did not agree and felt that additional policies were required 

The responses called for additional policies particularly in relation to telecommunications, 

pollution control and parking standards. 

[Officer Comments: Pollution limits are set by other regulatory regimes and should not be 

duplicated by planning, however a general policy could be considered if justified. It is 

considered that a local policy specifically relating to telecommunications is unlikely to add 

anything to national policy guidance in PPG8. In terms of detailed designs of 

telecommunications equipment, this would be covered by the generic approach to design set 

out under DM11. Parking standards may be better placed within a Supplementary Planning 

Document (SPD) rather than a DPD policy] 

DM1 – Development Principles 







Surrey CC stated that the policy was not flexible enough when considering proposals which 

may require a countryside location such as mineral workings or waste treatment facilities. The 

county council also wished to see more flexibility in terms of allowing development for 

education facilities if the need arose. 

[Officers Comments: Locations within the countryside for mineral working would not be 

excluded by the preferred approach as engineering operations which would not prejudice the 

open, rural or undeveloped character of the countryside are included. However for clarity it 

may be reasonable to include a specific reference to mineral working, providing there is no 

conflict with national or regional policy. Similarly, for clarity it may be reasonable to make 

specific reference to waste facilities, again subject to no conflict and caveats. It is considered 

that an enabling policy would not accord with national planning policy guidance on Green 

Belts (PPG2) or the open countryside (PPS7). Lifting this restriction is not considered justified 

without a demonstrated need for such facilities] 

DM2 – New Dwellings in the Countryside & Green Belt 





106


Some comments stated that the approach merely repeated national policy and should be 

deleted. 

[Officer Comments: Re-appraise approach with possible deletion of policy] 

DM3 – Farm Diversification & Equestrian Related Development 






Surrey County Council stated that a farm diversification could include waste related activities. 

[Officer Comments: The approach sets out general criteria to be considered for farm 

diversification proposals. It is not considered necessary or flexible however to list every type 

of proposal or use that may be acceptable, rather to consider each on its merits] 

DM4 – Re-use and Adaptation of Non-residential Buildings in the Countryside & Green 

Belt 






Surrey County Council stated that there is no reference to possible use for waste related 

activity. 

Some comments stated that the approach merely repeated national policy and should be 

deleted. 

[Officer Comments: Re-appraise approach with possible deletion of policy] 

DM5 – Replacement, Extension and Alteration of Existing Residential Dwellings and 

Residential Outbuildings in the Countryside and Green Belt 







Of note is that more responses agreed with option 2 (to set size restrictions) then the 

preferred approach of option 1. 

DM6 – Major Existing Developed Sites in the Green Belt 

107





Two responses were received that requested the restriction of development at Fairoaks 

Airport to ‘business aviation only’ be lifted and that a specific policy be put forward for 

Fairoaks. One of the responses also suggested that the boundary of the site be extended. 

[Officer Comments: No airport masterplan has been produced by Fairoaks Airport to indicate 

potential levels of growth or future plans. In the absence of such a masterplan or any 

indication as to the level of demand for business aviation or economic growth forecasts for 

the airport, it is difficult to justify expansion of the airport or to alter the boundaries of the 

major developed site in the Green Belt. Further, no evidence has been given as to how 

potential increases in business flight numbers at other regional airports such as Farnborough 

would impact upon the economic viability of expansion at Fairoaks. Therefore, in the absence 

of evidence, it is difficult to consider justification for re-aligning the MDS boundary or for 

promotion of a Fairoaks specific policy. 

However, it is considered that a flexibly worded policy could include the potential to expand 

Fairoaks if sufficient justification could be provided, and this will be explored] 

A couple of representations also put forward additional sites which included Wishmore Cross 

School and the sewerage treatment works at Lightwater and Chobham. 

[Officer Comments: No evidence has been submitted by Thames Water with respect to future 

expansion or increased capacity at the Chobham or Lightwater Sewerage Treatment Works. 

In the absence of such evidence the justification for inclusion as major developed sites is 

unwarranted. Evidence will be needed to justify why Wishmoor Cross School should be 

added as an MDS] 

DM7 – Physical & Community Infrastructure 






Responses mainly concerned themselves with setting the type of infrastructure that should be 

provided such as bus & rail, cultural facilities, green infrastructure, children’s centres. 

Thames Water suggested that developers cannot usually be requisitioned to secure water or 

sewerage infrastructure. 

DM8 – Travel Demand & Traffic Management 







108

Surrey County Council stated that reference should be given to transport impacts and their 

mitigation. 

[Officer Comments: The possible policy wording at para 6.150 of the options document 

already mentions transport impacts and mitigation] 

The Highways Agency also suggested that any proposed policy should promote sustainable 

transport modes, where development would have the potential to give rise to adverse impacts 

on the strategic highway network. 

[Officer Comments: Agreed that better clarity can be given in the preferred approach to linking 

promotion of sustainable travel modes to development where adverse impacts to the highway 

network arise. However, all development should promote sustainable transport modes 

irrespective of whether adverse impacts are likely to arise or not and this is already covered 

by the approach to CP4] 

DM9 – Decentralised, Renewable and Low-Carbon Energy in New Development 







20% gave no preference or only made general comments 

A few responses stated that the provision of renewables should be linked to viability. 

[Officer Comments: Any policy requiring a percentage of a developments energy demand to 

come from decentralised, renewable or low carbon technologies would be subject to viability] 

Other responses stated that any targets set should be in carbon dioxide, not energy. There 

was a mixed response in terms of whether any targets should be on top of or part of Building 

Regulation standards. 

[Officer Comments: options for whether targets should be expressed as energy or carbon 

dioxide will be re-appraised] 

DM10 Stand Alone Decentralised, Renewable and Low-Carbon Schemes 





12% gave no preference or made only general comments 

DM11 – Sustainable Design 






109

One response was concerned with the number of criteria in the policy 

[Officer Comments: Consideration to be given to making approach more concise] 

DM12 – Development & Flood Risk 






The Environment Agency has stated that even where conventional SUDS techniques cannot 

be incorporated due to soil conditions, SUDS can still provide attenuation and therefore they 

should not be excluded. The EA also suggests that the provisions of the sequential and 

exceptions test as set out in PPS25 should not only be applied, but passed. 

[Officer Comments: Change emphasis on SUDS and add in caveat regarding sequential and 

exception tests] 

Thames Water suggests that sewer flooding should be specifically mentioned in the policy. 

[Officer Comments: The approach does mention 'other' forms of flooding, but agreed that 

direct reference to sewer flooding could be included] 

DM13 – Rural Exception Sites 





A few responses stated that rural exceptions should be limited to brownfield sites. 

[Officer Comments: Allowing rural exception sites in areas that are designated as Green Belt 

or Countryside is set out within PPS3] 

Another response stated that the criteria of only allowing sites adjacent to settlements is too 

limiting. 

[Officer Comments: Considered that this could lead to developments within the open 

countryside, rather than being located close to settlement boundaries] 

DM14 – Retention of Existing Housing Stock 



DM15 – Retention of Small Dwellings in Rural Areas 


110

84% agreed with option1 (preferred approach) 



One representation stated that such a policy is now outdated. 

[Officer Comments: The local planning authority may have to re-appraise its policy approach 

to small dwellings given amended permitted development rights] 

DM16 – Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation 





There were a few representations that did not wish to see Gypsy/Traveller sites within the 

countryside or Green Belt 

[Officer Comments: the local authority should not exclude countryside locations if certain 

criteria are met as this would not accord with government Circular 01/2006: Planning for 

Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites] 

DM17 – Travelling Showpeople 





DM18 – Protecting the Role of District & Local Centres 






One response stated that the policy does not appear to address the possibility of A3-A5 uses 

or other town centre uses. Another response was that the policy should be related to local or 

consumer needs rather than the need of the centre. 

[Officer Comments: It is considered that some restriction on A3-A5 uses is required as a 

proliferation of these types of uses within a local centre can affect viability and vitality. 

Therefore a policy seeking restraint of changes of use away from A1 and other A uses is 

considered justified. In terms of ‘other town centre’ uses this policy is aimed at District & Local 

centres as defined by PPS6 and as such concentrates on the day to day needs of local 

communities. Whilst it is noted that Annexe A of PPS6 states that District centres usually 

contain a range of non-retail uses, this should not be to the detriment of the overall retail 

function of the centre. The needs of the centre to function as an effective retail location for 

day to day shopping needs should be taken into account] 

DM19 – Employment Development 

111







A few responses suggested that employment development should be allowed outside of 

designated employment areas. 

[Officer Comments: the findings of the forthcoming employment land review will need to be 

considered for policy development] 

DM20 – Retention of Existing Community Facilities 





DM21 – Sites of Local Nature Significance 






One response stated that the policy does not go far enough to protect all sites of biodiversity 

interest which may not be formally designated. 

[Officer Comments: Biodiversity interests that lie outside of designated wildlife/nature 

reserves would still be a material consideration in any detailed planning application, and the 

approach to DM11 seeks to include protecting, enhancing and promoting biodiversity 

interests for all development] 

Another response stated that local sites should not be used for SANGS 

[Officer Comments: some sites would play a role in use as SANGS and more generally as 

part of green infrastructure. Promoting sites as SANGS may bring benefits in terms of 

improved management, enhancement and accessibility and as such this should not be 

discounted, especially where improvements to biodiversity can be made] 

DM22 – Protection of Open Space & Recreation Facilities 







112

Sport England suggested that references should be made to opportunities for increases in the 

quantity and quality of sport and recreation facilities 

[Officer Comments: Agreed that the policy should contain reference to opportunities to 

improve and enhance recreational facilities both quantitatively and qualitatively] 

DM23 – Areas of High Archaeological Potential 





Surrey County Council wished to see the retention of assessments for sites of 0.4ha or 

greater. 

[Officer Comments: this will be re-appraised, provided that such an approach can be justified] 

DM24 – Locally Listed Buildings & Structures 






SANGS Issues & Options Consultation Responses and Officer Comments Presented 

to LDFWG 

ANNEX 1 

Question 1: Which of the options for delivery of SANGS do you prefer and why (General 

Comments) 

Of the five responses , three supported the identification of SANGS. 

Option (i) To take no action and rely on sites coming forward to provide their own 

SANGS 

Of the three responses, two did not support the proposition. 

Option (ii) To continue to negotiate the Mimbridge and Blackwater Valley SANGS and 

thereafter to rely on sites coming forward to deliver their own SANGS 

Of the three responses, two supported this option. 

Option (iii) To continue to negotiate the Mimbridge and Blackwater Valley SANGS and 

to secure additional land for use as a Strategic SANGS 

113

Of the twenty five responses, all supported this option but three expressed concern over 

identifying SANGS in Green belt. 

Question 2: Do you agree that the Council should specifically identify a strategic site 

for a SANGS in the Core Strategy 

Of the 35 responses, 31 supported the principle of identifying a strategic SANGS. 

Question 3: Do you agree with the Councils identification of land off St Catherines 

Road/Lake Road as its preferred site for a Strategic SANGS 

Of the 39 responses, 29 supported this option. However, some responses expressed 

concern about possible traffic generation and three only supported a SANGS on this site if 

accompanied by development. 

Question 4: Can you suggest any alternative sites to land off St Catherines Road/Lake 

Road that could be secured to provide SANGS 

Of the 35 responses, most offered no suggestion but of those that did, suggestions were as 

follows: Tekels Park, Camberley; Basingstoke Canal Towpath; Land adjacent to Lightwater 

Bypass; Land at Sergeants Mess, Deepcut; Land at Pankhurst Farm, West End; Land at 

Hatton Hill, Windlesham; Land off New Road, Bagshot; Land at former Cheswycks School 

site; Cemex site in the Blackwater Valley; and land at DERA. 

Question 5: Do you have any comments concerning the accompanying Sustainability 

Appraisal (see website) 

There were 29 responses; some felt that the identified sites should have been appraised. 

General Comments 

29 responses included general comments. Many of these expressed concern over the need 

to continue to build houses. 

General Comments: Frimley Fuel Allotments 

There were 13 responses of which 10 opposed or questioned the use of the site for SANGS. 

General Comments: PRB Site 

There were 10 responses of which 9 supported this option. 

General Comments: St Catherines Road/Lake Road 

There were 9 responses of which 5 supported this option. 

114

Deepcut Questionnaire Responses 

Response to the questionnaire 

1. 496 responses were received to the questionnaire. This represents a 17% return on 

the 3000 surveys that were sent out and can be considered a good response. 

2. Over half of the respondents indicated that they lived in Deepcut. Considering the 

number of households in Deepcut, the percentage of Deepcut households responding 

is around 42%. This reflects a very high return rate for Deepcut residents and 

suggests that the survey can be relied upon to provide a good indication of local 

views. 

Nature of respondents 

3. Compared to the Mytchett and Deepcut ward profile the survey drew a response from 

a representative mixes of males and females and a more diverse range of ethnic and 

religious groups. In terms of age, the majority of respondents fell into the 31 to 64 age 

group but there were also pleasing responses from older and younger age groups. 

4. Overall, the survey drew responses from a good cross section of the local community, 

including minority groups. This was particularly pleasing. 

Views on the existing character of Deepcut 

5. There was a consensus that Deepcut was a rural village. 

6. Natural features and a sense of spaciousness both in and around the settlement 

seemed to be the key features that respondents saw as contributing to the character 

of Deepcut. The surrounding natural open space, canal and wooded setting of the 

settlement was especially valued. 

7. Responses through-out the survey indicated that St Barbara’s Church on Deepcut 

Bridge Road was important to the community and should be retained. 

8. Responses to a number of questions suggested strong unhappiness with the built 

environment in terms of its character and quality. The shabby, rundown nature of the 

main road shops and commercial areas was of particular concern. Traffic and access 

issues were of less concern than the poor quality of the built environment. Through- 

115

out the survey concern was also expressed about the character of the Dettingen Park 

development. 

9. Over half of the respondents do not consider Deepcut to be well served by public 

transport while two thirds consider it to have good access by road. Very large 

numbers of people thought Frimley Green and Heatherside were in easy cycling 

distance. However, later responses suggest that people do not actually cycle to 

these places. 

Views on what Deepcut should be in the future 

10. The vast majority of people felt that the redevelopment of the Princess Royal Barracks 

presented an opportunity to blend and reshape Deepcut to create a new settlement. 

11. The desired future form of Deepcut is a rural village with a small scale character. 

12. There appears to be a strong desire for the new Deepcut to be a stand-alone 

settlement, supporting a good range of infrastructure. However, there does appear to 

be a natural link between Deepcut and Frimley Green with a much weaker link to the 

closer Heatherside. 

13. There was a very strong consensus that the new Deepcut needs a focal point and 

heart. The area between the existing barracks and Deepcut Bridge Road, especially 

around the vicinity of the Church was the most suggested location for the new centre. 

A Green was the most sought after feature for the focal point, followed by a village hall 

and then shops. 

14. The vast majority of respondents thought that the landscape should play an important 

role in shaping the form of the settlement. Over half felt the settlement should be 

dominated by the landscape and only 1% felt that it should dominate the landscape. 

15. The responses generally reflected a desire for smaller scale, spacious development. 

Most respondents wanted the future development to follow the following spacious type 

pattern: 

• Buildings to be a mix of lower heights and less than 3 storeys. 

• Houses with gardens, particularly houses in the 1 to 3 bedroom range 

• Detached and semi-detached houses 

116

16. Perhaps mindful of concerns over the existing poor quality of much of the existing 

Deepcut built environment, respondents opted very strongly for achieving a quality 

development in the future. 

17. Although half of the respondents opted for historic architectural styles, over 20% 

wished to see a contemporary approach. 

18. The responses suggested that people were looking for the new community to have a 

mix of age and social groups. 

19. The main recreation facilities people would like to see in the new Deepcut were indoor 

recreation facilities (Sports centre, swimming pool, pub restaurant) along with outdoor 

facilities such as sports fields and walking and cycling areas and routes). 

20. There is a desire to keep any building with a reasonable level of historic character. St 

Barbara’s church is overwhelmingly supported for retention. Other buildings 

recognised by respondents included The Royal Logistic Museum, Officers Mess, 

Sergeant’s Mess and the community centre. 

21. The survey identified the great importance that the local community attaches to its 

natural spaces – particularly woodland areas. The large Army Recreation Ground and 

the parkland associated with the barracks are also valued, but to a lesser extent. 

Travel Patterns 

22. The responses to the travel pattern questions can only be used as a limited guide 

owing to the relatively high level of non response to these questions. 

23. Deepcut resident’s travel patterns do not appear to be sustainable: 

• Residents are travelling in large numbers each week to the nearby major centres 

of Camberley and Farnborough and to the smaller centres closest to Deepcut. 

• Apart from trips to London, public transport use is low. 

• Resident’s travel to work patterns are dispersed and the overwhelming majority 

travel to and from work by car. 

117

24. The survey identified there would be reasonably high level of interest in public 

transport if the bus service was improved. 

The emerging community vision for the future Deepcut 

• The survey responses point to a clear vision for the future development at Deepcut 

which is widely held by the local community. This emerging vision is as follows: 

Deepcut should be remoulded to create a small scale, spacious, rural village development 

intimately connected with the surrounding natural open space. Good provision of services 

and infrastructure will allow the new village to be a stand-alone settlement with limited 

linkages to the nearby Frimley Green and Heatherside. The character of the village should 

be moulded by the landscape and its natural assets such as the woodlands, heaths and open 

space. 

To reflect the desire for a spacious character in keeping with the existing settlement and its 

wooded/heathland surrounds, buildings should be small scale and loose textured. Most of 

the houses should have gardens and be detached or semi-detached in style. Small houses, 

rather than flats or large houses are preferred. The creation of a community focus/heart as a 

meeting point for a socially and economically mixed community is vital. Delivery of high 

quality development is paramount. 

The historic character of the settlement is important and should be retained where the quality 

is good enough. St Barbara’s Church is identified as a particularly important building and 

should be kept. Historic architectural styles should dominate new building but contemporary 

styles are acceptable. 

Open spaces in the form of woodlands, heathlands and sports pitches are especially 

important. Indoor sports facilities are needed along with cycleways and footpaths. These 

spaces should surround and thread through the new village. 

118

Appendix N – Publication DPD - Specific and General Consultation Bodies 

Specifics 

SPEC/GOV/07/1093 07 1093 Surrey County Council - Passenger Transport Group 

SPEC/GOV/07/1261 07 1261 Runnymede Borough Council 

SPEC/GOV/07/1280 07 1280 Rushmoor Borough Council 

SPEC/GOV/07/1355 07 1355 Hart District Council 

SPEC/GOV/07/1368 07 1368 

Surrey County Council - Local Partnerships Team (Surrey 

Heath) 

SPEC/GOV/07/1394 07 1394 Surrey Councy Council - Surrey Highways 

SPEC/GOV/07/1434 07 1434 English Heritage (South East Region) 

SPEC/GOV/07/1449 07 1449 Bracknell Forest Borough Council 

SPEC/GOV/07/1583 07 1583 Hampshire County Council 

SPEC/GOV/07/1602 07 1602 Surrey County Council - Planning Implementation Team 

SPEC/GOV/07/1608 07 1608 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 

SPEC/GOV/07/1615 07 1615 Woking Borough Council 

SPEC/GOV/07/1639 07 1639 HM Prison Service Headquarters 

SPEC/GOV/07/1677 07 1677 

Surrey County Council - Planning Transport and 

Development Control 

SPEC/GOV/07/1682 07 1682 Surrey County Council - Children and Young People 

SPEC/GOV/07/1839 07 1839 Guildford Borough Council 

SPEC/GOV/07/1877 07 1877 Berkshire Joint Strategic Planning Unit 

SPEC/GOV/07/1964 07 1964 

Surrey County Council - Surrey Heritage - Learning, 

Museums & Partnership 

SPEC/GOV/07/2081 07 2081 Defence Estates 

SPEC/GOV/10/0003 10 0003 Homes and Communities Agency 

SPEC/GOV/10/0050 10 0050 Surrey County Council - Transport Development Control 

SPEC/HEAL/07/1522 07 1522 Surrey Primary Care Trust - South West Locality 

SPEC/HEAL/08/0107 08 0107 Surrey and Borders NHS Foundation Trust 

SPEC/PC/07/1332 07 1332 Ash and Ash Vale Parish Council 

SPEC/PC/07/1471 07 1471 Chobham Parish Council 

SPEC/PC/07/1473 07 1473 Bisley Parish Council 

SPEC/PC/07/1474 07 1474 Windlesham Parish Council 

SPEC/PC/07/1519 07 1519 West End Parish Council 

SPEC/PC/07/1587 07 1587 Normandy Parish Council 

SPEC/PC/07/1590 07 1590 Pirbright Parish Council 

SPEC/PC/07/1595 07 1595 Sandhurst Town Council 

SPEC/PC/07/1600 07 1600 Sunningdale Parish Council 

SPEC/PC/07/1601 07 1601 Sunninghill & Ascot Parish Council 

SPEC/PC/07/1614 07 1614 Winkfield Parish Council 

SPEC/PC/08/0006 08 0006 West End Parish Council 

SPEC/PC/10/0049 10 0049 Blackwater and Hawley Town Council 

SPEC/UTIL/07/1046 07 1046 Thames Water Property Services 

SPEC/UTIL/07/1585 07 1585 National Grid 

SPEC/UTIL/07/1586 07 1586 National Power 

SPEC/UTIL/07/1589 07 1589 NTL 

SPEC/UTIL/07/1592 07 1592 EON UK Ltd 

SPEC/UTIL/07/1604 07 1604 Telecom Plus plc 

SPEC/UTIL/07/1653 07 1653 Highways Agency 

SPEC/UTIL/07/1721 07 1721 BT 

SPEC/UTIL/07/1799 07 1799 South East Water 

SPEC/UTIL/07/1815 07 1815 Veolia Water Central 

SPEC/UTIL/07/1881 07 1881 Centrica 

SPEC/UTIL/09/0008 09 0008 BAA Aerodrome Safeguarding 

119

specifics with agents 

SPEC/GOV/10/0028 10 0028 Defence Estates 

SPEC/UTIL/07/1880 07 1880 

3G UK Ltd; O2 (UK) Ltd; Orange PCS Ltd; T-mobile UK 

Ltd; Vodaphone Ltd 

SPEC/GOV/08/0074 08 0074 Secretary of State for Transport 

SPEC/GOV/07/1011 07 1011 Natural England 

SPEC/GOV/07/1783 07 1783 Environment Agency 

OTH/ENV/07/1137 07 1137 RSPB (South East Office) 

OTH/ENV/07/1450 07 1450 Surrey Wildlife Trust 

SPEC/GOV/07/1902 07 1902 Surrey County Council - Biodiversity Team 

SPEC/ENV/08/0068 08 0068 Joint Nature Conservation Committee 

1155 

Secretary of State for Communities 

and Local Government c/o Mr I Dunsford 

Senior 

Planning 

Officer 

Mr 

Dunsford 

GOSE 

Generals & Other Stakeholders 

MISC/EDUC/07/1360 07 1360 Groves 

MISC/CONS/07/1133 07 1133 Gregory Gray Associates 

MISC/HEAL/07/1234 07 1234 Frimley Green Medical Centre 

MISC/RESI/07/1973 07 1973 Taylor 

GEN/RELG/08/0071 08 0071 The Camberley and Bagshot Catholic Parish 

MISC/MP/07/1908 07 1908 Ivison 

MISC/RESI/07/1716 07 1716 Wickert 

MISC/RESI/07/2025 07 2025 Ogunde 

MISC/BUSI/07/1090 07 1090 Scarott 

MISC/BUSI/08/0031 08 0031 Standard Life Investments 

MISC/BUSI/07/1043 07 1043 Land & New Homes 

MISC/CONS/07/1843 07 1843 CSJ Planning 

OTH/GOV/07/1637 07 1637 Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment 

GEN/COMM/08/0067 08 0067 Friends of Surrey Heath Museum 

OTH/SPOR/07/1063 07 1063 South East Regional Play Association 

MISC/RESI/07/1703 07 1703 Elliott 

MISC/CONS/07/1901 07 1901 Fairfield 

MISC/RESI/07/1452 07 1452 Whichelow 

MISC/RESI/07/1712 07 1712 Whichelow 

MISC/RESI/07/1163 07 1163 Wheeler 

MISC/EDUC/07/1376 07 1376 Gulliver 

MISC/RESI/08/0066 08 0066 Fierz 

MISC/RESI/07/1957 07 1957 Barrow 

MISC/HA/07/1241 07 1241 Stonham Housing Association 

MISC/DEV/07/1521 07 1521 Taylor Woodrow 

MISC/COMM/07/1160 07 1160 Surrey Heath Constituency Labour Party 

GEN/COMM/08/0034 08 0034 Townside Place Neighbourhood Watch Group 

GEN/COMM/07/1027 07 1027 Surrey Heath Ladies Probus Club 

MISC/RESI/08/0063 08 0063 Proudfoot 

MISC/INDV/07/1242 07 1242 Rainbird 

MISC/RESI/07/1977 07 1977 Felstead 

MISC/CONS/07/2080 07 2080 Heine Planning Consultancy 

GEN/COMM/07/1200 07 1200 Surrey Heath Housing Association Tenants Federation 

120

MISC/RESI/07/1641 07 1641 Murphy 

MISC/EDUC/07/1321 07 1321 Ark Nursery School 

MISC/RESI/07/1962 07 1962 Porter 

MISC/BUSI/07/1938 07 1938 Waterfords 

MISC/OTH/07/1286 07 1286 Travers 

MISC/MP/07/1909 07 1909 Peirce 

MISC/RESI/07/1305 07 1305 Binge 

MISC/RESI/07/1763 07 1763 Waldron 

MISC/RESI/07/1642 07 1642 Philippson 

MISC/RESI/08/0100 08 0100 Swaenpoel 

GEN/COMM/07/1263 07 1263 Frimley over 60 Club 

MISC/INDV/07/1872 07 1872 Davies 

MISC/RESI/07/2072 07 2072 Muzzall 

MISC/BUSI/07/1404 07 1404 Mitchell 

MISC/BUSI/07/1916 07 1916 Blackwater Valley Enterprise Trust 

MISC/RESI/07/1646 07 1646 Wilsdon 

MISC/HA/07/1100 07 1100 CDHA/HYDE HA 

MISC/BUSI/07/1273 07 1273 Cheung 

MISC/BUSI/08/0038 08 0038 Camberley Dental Practice 

MISC/EDUC/07/1300 07 1300 Carwarden House School Camberley 

GEN/MINO/07/1009 07 1009 West Indian Association - Aldershot District 

MISC/RESI/07/1940 07 1940 Fuller 

GEN/MINO/07/1116 07 1116 RADAR-Royal Assoc Disability & Rehabilitation 

MISC/RESI/07/2069 07 2069 Blake 

MISC/RESI/08/0045 08 0045 Neve 

MISC/BUSI/07/1382 07 1382 MW Facility Management Limited 

OTH/SPOR/07/1230 07 1230 National Playing Fields Association 

MISC/RESI/07/1974 07 1974 Lupton 

MISC/RESI/07/1953 07 1953 Pragnell 

GEN/RELG/07/1132 07 1132 Camberley Scripture Union Holiday Bible Club 

MISC/RESI/07/1517 07 1517 Bennie 

OTH/SPOR/07/1275 07 1275 Sir/Madam 

MISC/RESI/07/1737 07 1737 Cook 

MISC/RESI/07/1768 07 1768 Wheeler 

MISC/RESI/07/1823 07 1823 Wetherell 

MISC/RESI/07/2071 07 2071 Playford 

GEN/COMM/07/1438 07 1438 Walker 

MISC/RESI/07/1944 07 1944 Orr 

MISC/ENV/07/1283 07 1283 Allison 

MISC/COMM/07/1232 07 1232 Surrey Museums Consultative Committee 

MISC/RESI/07/2044 07 2044 Loader 

MISC/RESI/07/1689 07 1689 Buck 

GEN/RELG/07/2018 07 2018 Clarke 

MISC/RESI/07/1862 07 1862 Davies 

MISC/RESI/10/0036 10 0036 Richardson 

GEN/COMM/07/1423 07 1423 Davies 

GEN/VOL/07/1012 07 1012 YMCA Charity Shop 

MISC/CONS/07/2024 07 2024 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners 

MISC/CONS/07/2077 07 2077 Fusion Online Limited 

MISC/RESI/07/1086 07 1086 Hancock 

MISC/BUSI/07/1299 07 1299 Four Seasons Restaurant 

MISC/BUSI/07/1361 07 1361 Allan 

MISC/RESI/07/1961 07 1961 Anderson 

MISC/RESI/07/1740 07 1740 Simpson 

MISC/RESI/07/2001 07 2001 Collings 

MISC/RESI/08/0070 08 0070 Collings 

121

MISC/RESI/07/1775 07 1775 Appleford 

OTH/UTIL/07/1864 07 1864 The Inland Waterways Association 

MISC/DEV/07/1244 07 1244 Keyte 

MISC/RESI/07/1697 07 1697 Hewlett 

MISC/BUSI/08/0027 08 0027 Camberley Town Centre CIC 

MISC/RESI/07/1484 07 1484 Douch 

MISC/RESI/07/1746 07 1746 Murgett 

GEN/COMM/07/1315 07 1315 Browning 

MISC/RESI/07/1647 07 1647 Warner 

MISC/RESI/08/0065 08 0065 Smith 

MISC/EDUC/07/1025 07 1025 Windlesham Village Pre-School 

MISC/RESI/07/1837 07 1837 Horton 

MISC/RESI/07/1836 07 1836 Bean 

GEN/COMM/07/1062 07 1062 Lightwater Police & Community Partnership Group 

GEN/COMM/07/1764 07 1764 Tringham Hall Management 

OTH/COMM/07/1001 07 1001 Camberley Working Mens Club 

MISC/RESI/08/0112 08 0112 Hart 

MISC/OTH/07/1178 07 1178 Kinnear 

GEN/RELG/07/1292 07 1292 Hawkins 

08/0103 08 0103 Dear 

GEN/COMM/07/1386 07 1386 Murray 

GEN/COMM/07/1427 07 1427 Royal British Legion Club ( Camberley ) Ltd 

MISC/RESI/08/0121 08 0121 Grey 

MISC/RESI/07/1726 07 1726 Hurst 

MISC/CONS/07/1868 07 1868 Michael Cox Associates 

MISC/RESI/07/1014 07 1014 Clutterbuck 

GEN/COMM/07/1284 07 1284 United Nations Association (Surrey Heath Branch) 

MISC/RESI/07/1741 07 1741 Chenneour 

MISC/COMM/07/1432 07 1432 Frimley Green Carnival Committee 

MISC/RESI/07/1856 07 1856 Arliss 

MISC/COMM/07/1356 07 1356 Jobcentre 

GEN/RA/07/1076 07 1076 Southwell Park Residents Association 

MISC/RESI/08/0092 08 0092 Owen 

MISC/RESI/07/1734 07 1734 Thompson 

MISC/DEV/07/1526 07 1526 Rippon Development Services 

MISC/RESI/07/1969 07 1969 Dillon 

OTH/UTIL/07/1357 07 1357 Stagecoach Hants & Surrey 

GEN/COMM/10/0055 10 0055 Camberley - New Apostolic Church 

MISC/RESI/07/1986 07 1986 Gahagan 

MISC/BUSI/07/1219 07 1219 Way 

MISC/RESI/07/1727 07 1727 Crabtree Allotments 

MISC/HEAL/07/1389 07 1389 Zafar, Dental Practice 

MISC/BUSI/07/1392 07 1392 Harper 

MISC/BUSI/07/1217 07 1217 Pendleton 

MISC/RESI/07/1731 07 1731 Warner 

MISC/RESI/08/0119 08 0119 Morley 

MISC/CONS/07/1019 07 1019 Chetwood, Lawton & Morrison 

MISC/CONS/07/2013 07 2013 RPS Planning 

OTH/DEV/07/1324 07 1324 Home Builders Federation 

MISC/RESI/07/1965 07 1965 Poole 

MISC/BUSI/07/1078 07 1078 SK Amlani 

GEN/OTH/07/1293 07 1293 CAMRA/Surrey 

MISC/RESI/07/1488 07 1488 Ferguson 

MISC/RESI/07/1981 07 1981 Davey 

MISC/BUSI/08/0035 08 0035 Merrill Lynch 

MISC/BUSI/07/1301 07 1301 T/A Sparks Garage 

122

OTH/RESI/08/0041 08 0041 Knowles 

MISC/RESI/07/1849 07 1849 Richardson 

MISC/RESI/07/1705 07 1705 Johnson 

GEN/RA/07/2087 07 2087 Bisley Residents Association 

MISC/MP/07/1906 07 1906 Neighbour 

MISC/RESI/07/1970 07 1970 Conwell 

08/0089 08 0089 Circuit Planning Representative 

MISC/RESI/08/0072 08 0072 Whiting 

MISC/CONS/07/1879 07 1879 Knight Frank 

MISC/RESI/07/1762 07 1762 Playell 

MISC/RESI/08/0095 08 0095 Peebles 

MISC/CONS/10/0045 10 0045 GL Hearn 

GEN/RA/07/1520 07 1520 York Road & Harford Rise Residents Association 

MISC/RESI/07/1851 07 1851 Steffens 

MISC/BUSI/07/1888 07 1888 Coal Authority 

MISC/BUSI/07/1221 07 1221 Dynamco 

OTH/MINO/07/1895 07 1895 Help the Aged 

MISC/RESI/07/1847 07 1847 Martin 

MISC/OTH/08/0123 08 0123 Energy Saving Trust 

MISC/RESI/08/0052 08 0052 Cowen 

MISC/BUSI/07/1110 07 1110 Insight Opticians 

MISC/BUSI/07/1807 07 1807 Turner 

GEN/COMM/08/0033 08 0033 Gordon Avenue Neighbourhood Watch 

MISC/RESI/08/0044 08 0044 Sawyer 

GEN/COMM/07/1693 07 1693 Daoud 

MISC/BUSI/07/1215 07 1215 Evans 

MISC/BUSI/07/1216 07 1216 Prime Windows & Conservatories Ltd 

MISC/RESI/07/1842 07 1842 Bartlett 

MISC/RESI/08/0069 08 0069 Baverstock 

GEN/COMM/07/1460 07 1460 The Theatres Trust 

MISC/RESI/07/1989 07 1989 Chilton 

MISC/RESI/07/1691 07 1691 Stevens 

GEN/COMM/07/1152 07 1152 Surrey Heath Local History Club 

MISC/RESI/07/1725 07 1725 O'Connell 

MISC/RESI/07/2070 07 2070 Maclean 

MISC/RESI/07/1947 07 1947 Goodwin 

MISC/RESI/07/1645 07 1645 Johnson 

MISC/RESI/07/1960 07 1960 Evans 

MISC/ENV/07/1794 07 1794 Ramblers Association - Surrey Heath Group 

MISC/RESI/07/1729 07 1729 Maskell 

OTH/SPOR/07/1210 07 1210 Camberley Lawn Tennis Club 

MISC/DEV/07/1722 07 1722 Slough Estates Plc 

MISC/DEV/07/2073 07 2073 Wilson 

MISC/RESI/10/0046 10 0046 Hanks 

MISC/BUSI/07/1468 07 1468 Yorktown Business Association 

MISC/RESI/07/1698 07 1698 Clarke 

GEN/COMM/07/1144 07 1144 Burn 

MISC/BUSI/07/1390 07 1390 Ridgeway Financial Partnership 

MISC/RESI/07/1968 07 1968 Doyle 

MISC/RESI/07/1967 07 1967 Bradley 

MISC/CONS/08/0014 08 0014 Firstplan 

OTH/HEAL/07/1198 07 1198 Humphries 

MISC/BUSI/07/1123 07 1123 DJ Green & Associates 

GEN/RA/07/1018 07 1018 Beaufront Road Association 

MISC/RESI/07/1795 07 1795 Hanks 

MISC/RESI/08/0087 08 0087 Short 

123

MISC/RESI/07/1749 07 1749 O'Hara 

MISC/BUSI/07/1926 07 1926 Airtek Safety Ltd 

MISC/BUSI/07/1020 07 1020 Chancellor & Sons 

MISC/BUSI/07/1414 07 1414 Ford Mears & Partners 

MISC/CONS/07/1395 07 1395 Maurice Lillie Architects 

MISC/RESI/07/1713 07 1713 Loveday 

MISC/RESI/07/1699 07 1699 Young 

MISC/BUSI/07/1072 07 1072 Boots, The Chemist 

MISC/RESI/07/2055 07 2055 Tutton-Torode 

MISC/RESI/07/1840 07 1840 Whiteman 

MISC/CONS/07/1224 07 1224 Derek Horne & Associates 

MISC/DEV/07/2012 07 2012 McGee 

GEN/BUSI/07/1257 07 1257 Fairoaks Environment Consultative Committee 

MISC/RESI/07/1651 07 1651 Hall 

GEN/COMM/07/1289 07 1289 Music Bagshot Concert Band 

MISC/RESI/07/1956 07 1956 Kennedy 

MISC/RESI/07/1824 07 1824 Spencer 

MISC/BUSI/10/0010 10 0010 Frimley Designs and Surveys 

MISC/RESI/08/0122 08 0122 Hill 

GEN/MINO/07/1036 07 1036 Surrey Heath Talking Newspaper For The Blind 

OTH/ENV/07/1008 07 1008 Blackwater Valley Friends of the Earth 

MISC/BUSI/07/1396 07 1396 Camberley Travel Centre 

OTH/SPOR/07/1668 07 1668 Sport England 

MISC/RESI/07/1825 07 1825 Varley 

MISC/COMM/07/1268 07 1268 Edie 

MISC/RESI/07/1652 07 1652 Bridson 

MISC/CONS/07/1472 07 1472 GVA Grimley 

MISC/RESI/07/1838 07 1838 Lill 

MISC/RESI/07/1650 07 1650 Crabtree 

MISC/RESI/07/1690 07 1690 Doran 

MISC/RESI/08/0091 08 0091 Stewart 

MISC/RESI/10/0025 10 0025 Hyde 

MISC/RESI/07/2002 07 2002 Elton 

OTH/HEAL/07/1112 07 1112 Hospital & Community Friends National Assoc. 

MISC/BUSI/07/1059 07 1059 Specsavers Opticians 

MISC/RESI/07/1179 07 1179 Harrison 

MISC/RESI/07/1999 07 1999 Cassidy 

GEN/MINO/07/1040 07 1040 Surrey Heath Muslim Association 

MISC/CONS/07/1419 07 1419 Broadway Malyan Planning 

MISC/INDV/10/0053 10 0053 Lumley 

MISC/DEV/07/2027 07 2027 King Sturge 

MISC/DEV/07/2027 07 2027 King Sturge 

MISC/RESI/07/1945 07 1945 Osborne 

MISC/RESI/07/1765 07 1765 Prior 

MISC/RESI/07/1770 07 1770 Cowling 

MISC/RESI/07/1503 07 1503 Pinder 

MISC/RESI/08/0120 08 0120 Burge 

MISC/BUSI/07/1035 07 1035 Wilsher 

MISC/BUSI/07/1013 07 1013 MacDonalds Gifts 

GEN/MINO/07/1061 07 1061 The Royal Association For Deaf People 

MISC/RESI/10/0020 10 0020 Kimber 

OTH/SPOR/07/1187 07 1187 Christmas 

GEN/RA/07/1233 07 1233 Heatherside Community Association 

MISC/CONS/07/1066 07 1066 Edwards Elliott 

MISC/CONS/07/1785 07 1785 Tetlow King Planning 

MISC/CONS/07/1199 07 1199 Barker Parry Town Planning 

124

MISC/RESI/07/1530 07 1530 Pasley 

GEN/RESI/07/1990 07 1990 Glass 

MISC/RESI/08/0061 08 0061 Musgrove 

MISC/OTH/07/1304 07 1304 Heath 

MISC/RESI/07/1821 07 1821 Marshall 

MISC/RESI/07/2062 07 2062 Booty 


MISC/COMM/08/0026 08 0026 Camberley Fire Station 

GEN/MINO/07/1669 07 1669 Women's National Commission 

MISC/RESI/07/1972 07 1972 Haw 

MISC/RESI/08/0062 08 0062 Pike 

MISC/BUSI/07/1886 07 1886 Jerbic 

MISC/RESI/07/1732 07 1732 Pavey 

MISC/RESI/07/2003 07 2003 Pavey 

MISC/RESI/07/1955 07 1955 Young 

MISC/RESI/07/1777 07 1777 Singh 

OTH/MINO/07/1892 07 1892 Equal Opportunities Commission 

MISC/INDV/07/1867 07 1867 Jones 

MISC/BUSI/07/1406 07 1406 Ivey 

MISC/CONS/07/1015 07 1015 Meir Associates 

GEN/BUSI/07/1920 07 1920 Sony Centre 

GEN/RELG/07/1428 07 1428 St Mary's Church 

MISC/RESI/07/1850 07 1850 Baker 

GEN/MINO/07/1040 07 1040 Surrey Heath Muslim Association 

MISC/RESI/08/0046 08 0046 Isherwood 

GEN/MINO/07/1028 07 1028 Holidays for Disabled People 

MISC/RESI/07/1828 07 1828 Jones 

MISC/BUSI/07/1176 07 1176 James Butcher HA Limited 

MISC/HEAL/07/2076 07 2076 Davis 

MISC/RESI/07/1993 07 1993 Gibson 

GEN/RA/07/1267 07 1267 Curley Hill Residents Association 

MISC/RESI/07/1687 07 1687 Beaumont 

OTH/OTH/07/1802 07 1802 Lightwater Business Association 

MISC/INDV/08/0008 08 0008 Narrainen 

MISC/RESI/07/1833 07 1833 Bell 

MISC/BUSI/07/1279 07 1279 Legal Services Commission 

OTH/UTIL/07/1667 07 1667 Freightliner 

MISC/RESI/07/1976 07 1976 Lister 

MISC/RESI/07/1180 07 1180 Deal 


MISC/RESI/08/0060 08 0060 Hillier 

MISC/RESI/07/1648 07 1648 Ashurst 

MISC/RESI/07/1982 07 1982 Emmins 

OTH/ENV/08/0009 08 0009 Surrey Bat Group 

MISC/MP/07/1910 07 1910 Chipperfield 

MISC/RESI/08/0054 08 0054 Marshall 

GEN/COMM/07/1252 07 1252 Surrey Heath Neighbourhood Watch Support Group 

MISC/RESI/07/1820 07 1820 Jackson 

OTH/UTIL/07/1662 07 1662 National Express 

MISC/BUSI/07/1149 07 1149 Blackman 

MISC/RESI/07/1753 07 1753 Crooke 

MISC/RESI/07/1954 07 1954 Quinlan 

GEN/COMM/07/1410 07 1410 Diamond Ridge Neighbourhood Watch 

MISC/BUSI/07/1397 07 1397 Waterfords Estate Agents Ltd 

MISC/RESI/07/1276 07 1276 Ovenden RS Hom 

MISC/RESI/07/1959 07 1959 Wallace 

125

GEN/RELG/07/1122 07 1122 

The Royal Airforce Association Camberley and District 

Branch 

MISC/RESI/07/1848 07 1848 Roberts 

MISC/CONS/07/1251 07 1251 Cushman & Wakefield / Healey & Baker 

MISC/RESI/10/0035 10 0035 Wing 

MISC/RESI/07/1979 07 1979 Argyle 

MISC/BUSI/07/1364 07 1364 Armstrong 

MISC/RESI/08/0124 08 0124 May 

MISC/RESI/07/1743 07 1743 Berry 

MISC/HEAL/07/1430 07 1430 Coppertop Dental Practice 

GEN/COMM/07/1207 07 1207 The Butts, Bisley Day Centre 

MISC/RESI/07/1771 07 1771 Atkins 

MISC/RESI/07/1966 07 1966 Bennett 

MISC/CONS/07/1393 07 1393 Guest 

MISC/RESI/07/2047 07 2047 Valentine 

MISC/RESI/08/0037 08 0037 Douglas 

MISC/OTH/07/1328 07 1328 Surrey Heath Arts Council 

MISC/BUSI/07/1247 07 1247 W Donald (Pharmacy) Ltd 

OTH/EDUC/07/1658 07 1658 Surrey Learning and Skills Council 


MISC/RESI/07/1723 07 1723 Marsh 

MISC/RESI/07/1644 07 1644 Steel 

MISC/RESI/07/1194 07 1194 Couzens 

OTH/ENV/07/1030 07 1030 Woodland Trust 

MISC/RESI/07/1831 07 1831 Holland 

MISC/RESI/08/0099 08 0099 Phillips 

MISC/BUSI/07/1931 07 1931 Hutchinson & Co Ltd 

MISC/RESI/07/1706 07 1706 White 

MISC/RESI/07/1744 07 1744 Hutchison 

MISC/RESI/07/2059 07 2059 Bezodis 

GEN/RA/07/2082 07 2082 St Pauls Residents Association 

MISC/RESI/08/0115 08 0115 Muir 


MISC/RESI/07/1853 07 1853 Venning 

MISC/BUSI/07/1930 07 1930 Shugard Self-Storage 

MISC/BUSI/07/1934 07 1934 Shurgard Self-Storage 

MISC/CONS/07/1339 07 1339 Rapleys LLP 

MISC/RESI/07/2057 07 2057 Harnden 

GEN/RA/07/1917 07 1917 

Southern Road & Lower Charles Street Resident's 

Association 

MISC/BUSI/07/1081 07 1081 Alabaster 

MISC/BUSI/07/1240 07 1240 Mackenzie Smith (estate agents) 

MISC/RESI/08/0021 08 0021 Mitchell 


MISC/RESI/07/1846 07 1846 Soanes 

MISC/OTH/10/0029 10 0029 Corbin 

MISC/BUSI/07/1107 07 1107 Mall Management 

GEN/RA/07/1003 07 1003 Mytchett, Frimley Green & Deepcut Residents Society 

MISC/RESI/07/1946 07 1946 Gonella 

MISC/BUSI/07/1168 07 1168 Durrant 

MISC/RESI/07/2049 07 2049 Rayner 

MISC/HEAL/07/1227 07 1227 Kay 

MISC/BUSI/07/1298 07 1298 Business Link Surrey 

MISC/RESI/07/1728 07 1728 Rogers 

GEN/COMM/07/1377 07 1377 Ellis 

MISC/RESI/07/1987 07 1987 Cook 

126

MISC/ENV/07/1173 07 1173 Campbell 

MISC/RESI/07/1754 07 1754 Rankin 

MISC/BUSI/07/1091 07 1091 Heatherside Pharmacy 

MISC/RESI/07/1499 07 1499 Musgrave 

MISC/RESI/07/2054 07 2054 O'Brien 

MISC/BUSI/07/1813 07 1813 Howard Hutton & Associates 

MISC/CONS/07/1096 07 1096 Richard Bonny Architectural Design 

MISC/RESI/07/1827 07 1827 Holloway 

MISC/RESI/07/1822 07 1822 Gaylor 

MISC/BUSI/07/1444 07 1444 Superdrug Stores 

MISC/RESI/07/1755 07 1755 Parish 

MISC/RESI/10/0005 10 0005 Dunham 


GEN/VOL/07/1105 07 1105 Laurie 

MISC/RESI/07/1074 07 1074 Spencer 

MISC/OTH/07/1117 07 1117 Bloomfield 

MISC/RESI/07/1700 07 1700 Essen 

MISC/BUSI/07/1374 07 1374 Barclays Bank Plc 

MISC/BUSI/07/1272 07 1272 Wells 

MISC/RESI/07/1949 07 1949 Holmes 

MISC/BUSI/07/1024 07 1024 Quorum Corporate Services Ltd 

MISC/CONS/07/1342 07 1342 Cunnane Town Planning 

MISC/RESI/08/0048 08 0048 Stacey 

MISC/RESI/08/0049 08 0049 Stacey 

MISC/RESI/07/1952 07 1952 Moss 

MISC/RESI/07/2020 07 2020 Bradley 

MISC/BUSI/07/1185 07 1185 McCarran 

MISC/RESI/07/1738 07 1738 Drake 

MISC/RESI/07/1996 07 1996 Long 

MISC/BUSI/08/0012 08 0012 MGA Town Planning & Development Consultantss 

MISC/RESI/07/1841 07 1841 Kent 

MISC/CONS/07/1103 07 1103 Julian Brown Consultancy 

MISC/RESI/07/1826 07 1826 Bailey 


MISC/RESI/07/2023 07 2023 Davis 

MISC/RESI/07/1068 07 1068 Mustafa 

MISC/CONS/07/1829 07 1829 Tribal 

MISC/CONS/07/2066 07 2066 Tribal MJP 

MISC/RESI/07/1742 07 1742 Kershaw 

MISC/RESI/07/1950 07 1950 Ralph 

MISC/HEAL/07/1111 07 1111 Heatherside Surgery 

GEN/EDUC/07/1052 07 1052 Surrey Heath Community Learning Partnership 

MISC/BUSI/07/1119 07 1119 Bradleys Hayward Parker Solicitors 

MISC/CONS/07/1162 07 1162 Howard Sharp & Partners 

MISC/DEV/07/1922 07 1922 SHA Estates - South East 

MISC/RESI/07/2056 07 2056 Chadwick 

OTH/SPOR/07/1055 07 1055 Hughes 

GEN/MINO/07/1458 07 1458 The Gypsy Council 

MISC/RESI/07/1692 07 1692 Atkinson 

MISC/RESI/08/0102 08 0102 Channell 

MISC/BUSI/07/1773 07 1773 Greaves Project Management Limited 

MISC/INDV/07/1228 07 1228 Ufton 

MISC/CONS/07/1903 07 1903 DevPlan 

MISC/RESI/07/2064 07 2064 Whitelock 

MISC/BUSI/07/1092 07 1092 Buckingham 

MISC/DEV/07/2029 07 2029 Iceni Projects 

127

MISC/CONS/07/2083 07 2083 Drivers Jonas 

MISC/RESI/07/2010 07 2010 Pointet 

OTH/SPOR/07/1056 07 1056 Grove 

OTH/HEAL/07/1128 07 1128 A.B. Davidson & S.J. Nicoll 

MISC/SPOR/07/1049 07 1049 Surrey Playing Fields Association 

MISC/RESI/07/2074 07 2074 Cummings 

GEN/MINO/07/1274 07 1274 Camberley Islamic Welfare Association 

MISC/DEV/09/0001 09 0001 Colliers CRE 

GEN/OTH/07/1455 07 1455 Surrey and Hampshire Canal Society 

MISC/RESI/07/1695 07 1695 Lawrence 

MISC/RESI/07/1948 07 1948 Scales 

MISC/RESI/07/1487 07 1487 Faulkner 

MISC/CONS/10/0032 10 0032 BNP Paribas Real Estate 

MISC/RESI/07/1830 07 1830 Cowan 

OTH/UTIL/07/1835 07 1835 Southern Gas Networks 

MISC/RESI/07/1745 07 1745 Heleine 

GEN/COMM/07/1429 07 1429 SCC Adults and Community Care 

GEN/OTH/07/1211 07 1211 Archer 

MISC/RESI/07/1702 07 1702 Collerige 

MISC/BUSI/07/1358 07 1358 Stahlwille Tools Limited 

MISC/DEV/07/1254 07 1254 APM SERVICES LTD 

OTH/GOV/07/1893 07 1893 Betts 

GEN/MINO/07/1654 07 1654 Bengali Welfare Association 

MISC/HEAL/07/1029 07 1029 Lightwater and Windlesham Practice 

MISC/BUSI/07/1145 07 1145 Rawlings 

MISC/BUSI/08/0025 08 0025 Windsor Creative Solutions 

MISC/RESI/07/1899 07 1899 Broughton 

OTH/SPOR/07/1089 07 1089 Blackwater Valley Countryside Partnership 

MISC/OTH/07/1985 07 1985 MNOPF 

GEN/COMM/07/1871 07 1871 

MISC/RESI/07/2067 07 2067 Hammond 

MISC/DEV/07/1142 07 1142 SecondSite Property Holdings Ltd 

GEN/COMM/07/1151 07 1151 Bagshot WI 

GEN/COMM/10/0042 10 0042 Women's Institute 

OTH/EDUC/07/2050 07 2050 Hammond Junior School 

MISC/RESI/10/0016 10 0016 ApSimon 

GEN/RELG/07/1157 07 1157 Wickenden 

MISC/DEV/07/1463 07 1463 Barratt Southern Counties 

GEN/OTH/07/1437 07 1437 Heathlands CAB 

MISC/RESI/10/0013 10 0013 Morgan 

MISC/DEV/07/1131 07 1131 Bellway Homes Ltd 

MISC/RESI/07/1696 07 1696 Forsyth 

MISC/DEV/07/1876 07 1876 UK Land Investment Group 

GEN/RELG/07/1774 07 1774 The Beacon Church 

MISC/EDUC/07/1253 07 1253 Cordwalles Junior School 

MISC/RESI/07/1495 07 1495 Longden 

MISC/COMM/07/1099 07 1099 Woods 

MISC/RESI/07/1760 07 1760 Dedman 

MISC/RESI/07/1709 07 1709 Yerbury MBE 

OTH/SPOR/07/1314 07 1314 Gibson 

MISC/RESI/10/0022 10 0022 Wilson 

GEN/RA/07/1208 07 1208 Watchetts Residents Association 

MISC/HA/07/1869 07 1869 Surrey Community Development Trust 

MISC/RESI/08/0043 08 0043 4c Inns Ltd 

OTH/GOV/07/1897 07 1897 Regional Housing Board 

MISC/BUSI/07/1146 07 1146 Duffy 

128

MISC/BUSI/07/1385 07 1385 BBC Southern Counties Radio 

MISC/OTH/08/0108 08 0108 CPRE (Surrey Heath Branch) 

OTH/ENV/07/1345 07 1345 Council for the Protection of Rural England 

OTH/ENV/07/1640 07 1640 South East England Forest District 


MISC/DEV/07/1225 07 1225 Cala Homes 

MISC/BUSI/07/1409 07 1409 Elliot 

GEN/RA/08/0073 08 0073 Copped Hall Residents Association 

GEN/RA/08/0059 08 0059 Dettingen Residents Association 

MISC/OTH/07/1919 07 1919 Surrey Young Enterprise 

OTH/HEAL/07/1439 07 1439 Surrey Drug Care 

MISC/OTH/10/0006 10 0006 West End Action Group 

GEN/COMM/10/0001 10 0001 Old Dean Community Group 

MISC/HA/10/0008 10 0008 Sentinel Housing Association 

OTH/HA/08/0105 08 0105 Paragon Community Housing Group 

GEN/RELG/07/1122 07 1122 

The Royal Airforce Association Camberley and District 

Branch 

GEN/MINO/07/1591 07 1591 Planning Committee of Showmen's Guild LHC 

OTH/OTH/07/1657 07 1657 Surrey Fire and Rescue Sevice 

OTH/UTIL/07/1887 07 1887 Civil Aviation Authority 

GEN/COMM/07/1130 07 1130 Targett 

MISC/INDV/07/1801 07 1801 Salmon 

MISC/COMM/07/1309 07 1309 Camberley & Frimley Police & Community Group 

OTH/COMM/07/1529 07 1529 Surrey Heath Borough Police 

GEN/COMM/10/0057 10 0057 St Peter and St John 

OTH/ENV/07/1002 07 1002 Basingstoke Canal Authority 

MISC/RESI/07/2068 07 2068 Bond 

MISC/RESI/07/1819 07 1819 Salveson 

OTH/EDUC/07/2051 07 2051 Lightwater Village School 

MISC/BUSI/07/1399 07 1399 Seale 

GEN/COMM/07/1050 07 1050 Taylor 

MISC/HA/07/1245 07 1245 Kingfisher Housing Association 

MISC/DEV/07/1416 07 1416 Charles Church Southern 

OTH/UTIL/07/1411 07 1411 Fairoaks Airport 

MISC/BUSI/07/1206 07 1206 Lorna Doone Dental Practice 

GEN/COMM/07/1422 07 1422 St Lawrence Church Chobham 

GEN/MINO/07/1733 07 1733 Surrey Traveller Community Relations Forum 

MISC/GOV/08/0029 08 0029 Wokingham Borough Council 

MISC/RESI/10/0019 10 0019 Mitchell 

MISC/BUSI/07/1400 07 1400 Denyer Insurance Consultancy 

OTH/UTIL/07/1661 07 1661 First Beeline Buses Ltd 

GEN/COMM/07/1053 07 1053 Connexions Centre 

GEN/COMM/10/0054 10 0054 Camberley Methodist Church 

OTH/VOL/07/1087 07 1087 Age Concern - Frimley & Camberley 

GEN/VOL/07/1329 07 1329 Voluntary Services Surrey Heath 

GEN/VOL/07/1229 07 1229 Voluntary Action In Spelthorne 

MISC/RESI/10/0018 10 0018 Cadby 

MISC/INDV/10/0052 10 0052 Glazier 

GEN/BUSI/07/1343 07 1343 Surrey Chamber of Commerce 

MISC/COMM/07/1915 07 1915 Strategy and Policy 

MISC/GOV/07/1367 07 1367 Spelthorne Borough Council 

MISC/GOV/07/1380 07 1380 Molony 

MISC/RESI/07/1963 07 1963 Bancroft 

MISC/INDV/07/1239 07 1239 Cobbett 

GEN/RELG/07/1127 07 1127 St Paul's Church 

MISC/DEV/07/1071 07 1071 Crest Nicholson 

129

MISC/CONS/07/2078 07 2078 Lennon Planning - Wokingham 

MISC/CONS/08/0040 08 0040 Lennon Planning - Crowthorne 

MISC/BUSI/07/1250 07 1250 Mini-circuits Europe 

MISC/BUSI/07/1447 07 1447 Kaylie 

MISC/RESI/07/1710 07 1710 Banks 

MISC/BUSI/07/1094 07 1094 Halford 

GEN/RA/07/1213 07 1213 Deepcut Village Association 

OTH/SPOR/07/1108 07 1108 Earle 

MISC/RESI/08/0015 08 0015 Lord 

MISC/BUSI/07/1129 07 1129 Matthew Pellereau Limited 

MISC/BUSI/07/1054 07 1054 Alliance One International Services Ltd 

GEN/MINO/07/1080 07 1080 Disability Initiative 

MISC/BUSI/07/1413 07 1413 Dolphin Head Group 

MISC/BUSI/07/1017 07 1017 Twinn 

MISC/BUSI/07/1150 07 1150 Waitrose 

MISC/BUSI/07/1269 07 1269 Archforce Engineering Ltd 

MISC/RESI/07/1246 07 1246 Wilson 

GEN/RA/07/1466 07 1466 Middleton Road Residents Association 

MISC/EDUC/07/1065 07 1065 Pine Ridge Infant and Nursery School 

OTH/SPOR/07/1161 07 1161 Tekels Park Estate Limited 

MISC/CONS/08/0022 08 0022 Terence O'Rourke 

MISC/DEV/07/1804 07 1804 Terence O'Rourke - Bournemouth 

MISC/CONS/07/1197 07 1197 Roger Tym & Partners 

MISC/RESI/10/0047 10 0047 Close 

MISC/RESI/08/0090 08 0090 Bedwell 

MISC/BUSI/07/1373 07 1373 Moss Pharmacy 

GEN/COMM/08/0088 08 0088 Staines 

MISC/HA/07/1923 07 1923 Pavilion 

MISC/RESI/07/1951 07 1951 Ross 

GEN/RELG/07/1016 07 1016 Liberal Catholic Church St Francis Of Assisi 

MISC/BUSI/07/1316 07 1316 Palmer 

MISC/BUSI/07/1928 07 1928 Fluor Ltd 

GEN/MINO/07/1375 07 1375 Guide Dogs for the Blind Association 

MISC/RESI/10/0002 10 0002 Newman 

MISC/RESI/07/1353 07 1353 Lilley 

MISC/RESI/07/1943 07 1943 Rendel 

GEN/RA/07/1249 07 1249 West End Village Society 

OTH/UTIL/07/1666 07 1666 South West Trains Ltd 

MISC/BUSI/07/1873 07 1873 Spiller 

OTH/HEAL/07/1320 07 1320 WRVS 

MISC/EDUC/07/1220 07 1220 Watchetts Junior School 

MISC/OTH/07/1354 07 1354 Acorn Community Drug & Alcohol Services 

OTH/HEAL/07/1258 07 1258 Fisher 

MISC/RESI/07/1766 07 1766 Bright 

GEN/COMM/07/1175 07 1175 Windlesham Community Home Trust 

GEN/COMM/07/1223 07 1223 Rapley 

MISC/RESI/07/1707 07 1707 Bullen 

MISC/RESI/07/2009 07 2009 Jones 

OTH/ENV/07/1800 07 1800 British Wind Energy Association 

MISC/HEAL/07/1047 07 1047 Bunyan 

OTH/EDUC/07/1442 07 1442 Narracott 

MISC/CONS/07/1870 07 1870 Boyer Planning 

OTH/MINO/07/1609 07 1609 The Showmen's Guild Of Great Britain 

GEN/COMM/10/0056 10 0056 Camberley & Bagshot RC Parish 

MISC/HEAL/07/1424 07 1424 Parker BDS DGDP 

MISC/BUSI/07/1303 07 1303 Davies 

130

MISC/HA/08/0003 08 0003 English Rural Housing Association 

MISC/HA/07/1226 07 1226 Hanover Housing Association 

MISC/EDUC/07/1195 07 1195 Lewis 

MISC/BUSI/07/1083 07 1083 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd 

GEN/RELG/07/1281 07 1281 Heatherside Church 

MISC/OTH/08/0110 08 0110 Chobham Commons Preservation Committee 

OTH/UTIL/07/1894 07 1894 Freight Transport Association 

MISC/BUSI/07/1939 07 1939 Waitrose Ltd 

MISC/EDUC/07/1191 07 1191 Heritage 

MISC/RESI/07/1758 07 1758 Wrench 

GEN/RA/07/1379 07 1379 The Chobham Society 

MISC/INDV/10/0051 10 0051 Quigley 

MISC/HEAL/07/1034 07 1034 Westfield Surgery 

MISC/EDUC/08/0082 08 0082 Cresswell 

GEN/COMM/07/1010 07 1010 

Centres and Facilities (Day Care Centres for Older 

People) 

MISC/DEV/07/1779 07 1779 Nationcrest 

MISC/BUSI/07/1407 07 1407 Intertec Data Solutions Ltd 

MISC/EDUC/07/1196 07 1196 Bristow Infant And Nursery School 

MISC/BUSI/07/1262 07 1262 CITA 

MISC/BUSI/07/1381 07 1381 Vickery & Company (estate agents) 

MISC/CONS/07/1021 07 1021 Airey Miller Partnership LLP 

MISC/BUSI/08/0028 08 0028 Riseden Ltd 

GEN/COMM/07/1070 07 1070 Mann 

GEN/SPOR/10/0017 10 0017 Open Spaces Society 

OTH/ENV/07/1751 07 1751 Chobham Common Preservation Committee 

OTH/ENV/07/1884 07 1884 British Geological Survey 

MISC/CONS/07/1816 07 1816 Mason 

MISC/EDUC/07/1735 07 1735 Collingwood College 

GEN/COMM/10/0059 10 0059 Camberley United Reform Church 

MISC/RA/07/2086 07 2086 East Chobham Residents Association 

GEN/RA/07/1266 07 1266 Bagshot Society 

MISC/OTH/07/1905 07 1905 Potter Organisation 

MISC/BUSI/07/1097 07 1097 Ayres 

MISC/BUSI/07/1084 07 1084 Footprint Cleaning Contractors 

OTH/UTIL/07/1659 07 1659 Arriva 

MISC/BUSI/07/1366 07 1366 Eli Lilly and Company Limited 

MISC/HA/07/1317 07 1317 Sentinel Housing Association 

MISC/RESI/07/1978 07 1978 Duckworth 

GEN/COMM/10/0058 10 0058 St Tarcissus 

MISC/BUSI/07/1933 07 1933 Bank of America Merrill Lynch 

MISC/BUSI/07/1417 07 1417 Lucas Green Nurseries (R&G Stevens) 

MISC/RESI/10/0023 10 0023 Wells 

MISC/RESI/10/0024 10 0024 Theoharris 

MISC/BUSI/07/1323 07 1323 Kelly 

MISC/BUSI/07/1810 07 1810 Kingston 

GEN/RA/10/0031 10 0031 Crawley Ridge Neighbourhood Watch 

MISC/DEV/10/0048 10 0048 RPS 

MISC/RESI/07/1991 07 1991 Warren 

MISC/DEV/08/0039 08 0039 Foundation 

MISC/RESI/07/1183 07 1183 Ansell MBIAT FFB 

MISC/CONS/07/2011 07 2011 Mansard Country Homes Ltd 

MISC/DEV/07/1445 07 1445 Mansard Country Homes Ltd 

MISC/RESI/07/1988 07 1988 Robbins 

OTH/GOV/07/1896 07 1896 Tenant Services Authority 

131

GEN/COMM/07/1214 07 1214 Heatherside Community Centre 

MISC/HEAL/07/1408 07 1408 Maycroft Dental Practice 

MISC/INDV/08/0081 08 0081 Pearman 

MISC/RESI/08/0098 08 0098 Pearman 

MISC/RESI/08/0101 08 0101 Consterdine 

MISC/RESI/08/0116 08 0116 Consterdine 

OTH/UTIL/07/1665 07 1665 Great Western Trains Company Limited 

GEN/MINO/07/1109 07 1109 McLarry 

MISC/DEV/08/0004 08 0004 Millgate Homes 

MISC/CONS/07/1031 07 1031 Planning Issues 

MISC/BUSI/08/0096 08 0096 Oxford Strategic Marketing 

MISC/MP/07/1504 07 1504 Pitt 

GEN/COMM/07/1235 07 1235 Woking and Surrey Heath Crossroads 

GEN/COMM/07/1188 07 1188 Surrey Police 

MISC/RESI/07/1757 07 1757 Adler 

MISC/OTH/07/1311 07 1311 Pitt 

OTH/UTIL/07/1663 07 1663 Stagecoach Hampshire Bus 

GEN/COMM/07/1134 07 1134 Shorrock 

MISC/RESI/07/1958 07 1958 Norman 

MISC/CONS/07/1398 07 1398 Fane 

MISC/GOV/07/1102 07 1102 Mid Sussex District Council 

MISC/DEV/07/1285 07 1285 Bell Cornwell Partnership 

MISC/RESI/07/1752 07 1752 Bevan 

MISC/CONS/07/1975 07 1975 DPDS Consulting Group 

MISC/BUSI/07/1192 07 1192 Flavia Estates 

MISC/OTH/07/1190 07 1190 Palache 

MISC/BUSI/07/1936 07 1936 Wilky Property Holdings 

GEN/RELG/07/1425 07 1425 St Mary's Church and Centre 

MISC/HA/07/1044 07 1044 Eyles 

OTH/ENV/07/1154 07 1154 CPRE Surrey 

GEN/GOV/07/1326 07 1326 East Hampshire District Council 

MISC/RESI/08/0007 08 0007 Melrose 

MISC/DEV/07/1772 07 1772 Persimmon Homes South East 

MISC/BUSI/07/1443 07 1443 Managerial Behavioural Logistical Ltd 

OTH/MINO/07/1636 07 1636 Friends, Families and Travellers 

MISC/HEAL/07/1082 07 1082 Positive Action 

MISC/BUSI/07/1350 07 1350 Scammell 

MISC/DEV/08/0011 08 0011 Stedman Contracting Ltd 

GEN/COMM/07/1420 07 1420 Uncle Bud's Workshop & Old Dean Youth Bike Project 

OTH/ENV/07/1883 07 1883 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology 

MISC/ENV/07/1039 07 1039 The National Trust 

MISC/COMM/07/1296 07 1296 N W Surrey Police 

GEN/HEAL/07/1026 07 1026 Chobham Neighbourhood Care 

MISC/BUSI/07/1340 07 1340 Hollingsworth 

MISC/HEAL/07/1359 07 1359 Frimley Park Hospital 

MISC/RESI/07/2015 07 2015 Watts 

MISC/HA/07/1865 07 1865 Thames Valley Housing Association 

OTH/HEAL/07/1041 07 1041 Health & Safety Executive 

MISC/OTH/07/1113 07 1113 Deepcut Garrison Headquarters 

MISC/EDUC/07/1436 07 1436 Prior Heath Infant School 

MISC/EDUC/07/1138 07 1138 Farnborough 6th Form College 

MISC/BUSI/07/1924 07 1924 Exova 

GEN/MINO/07/1165 07 1165 NW Surrey Assoc. of Disabled People 

GEN/VOL/07/1248 07 1248 Hayes-Holgate 

MISC/CONS/07/1415 07 1415 Baker Davidson Thomas 

MISC/CONS/07/1925 07 1925 Vail Williams LLP 

132

GEN/COMM/07/1085 07 1085 Citizens Advice Bureau 

OTH/DEV/08/0106 08 0106 Redrow Homes 

OTH/DEV/09/0007 09 0007 Redrow Homes 

MISC/BUSI/07/1032 07 1032 Bird 

OTH/GOV/07/2014 07 2014 Disabled Access Surrey Heath (DASH) 

GEN/COMM/07/1064 07 1064 Camberley Natural History Society 

MISC/CONS/07/1277 07 1277 The D & M Planning Partnership 

OTH/UTIL/07/1898 07 1898 Road Haulage Association 

GEN/VOL/07/1182 07 1182 Missing People 

MISC/GOV/07/1684 07 1684 Harris 

MISC/CONS/07/1306 07 1306 White Young Green Planning 


MISC/CONS/07/1528 07 1528 MBH Partnership 

MISC/VOL/08/0051 08 0051 Camberley Mencap 

MISC/BUSI/07/1209 07 1209 M & G Fire Protection 

MISC/BUSI/07/1205 07 1205 Jonathon Barlow Partnership 

MISC/DEV/07/1778 07 1778 Montagu Land 

MISC/CONS/08/0010 08 0010 Sigma Planning Services 

MISC/BUSI/07/1363 07 1363 Svanberg 

GEN/MINO/07/2019 07 2019 Plastow 

MISC/BUSI/07/1814 07 1814 David Hicken Associates Ltd 

MISC/DEV/07/1912 07 1912 Miller Homes 

MISC/CONS/07/1866 07 1866 Foy Planning Consultancy 

GEN/RA/07/1451 07 1451 The Camberley Society 

OTH/EDUC/07/1440 07 1440 Clarke BA Hons 

OTH/GOV/07/1890 07 1890 Commission for Racial Equality 

MISC/BUSI/07/1362 07 1362 BAM Nuttall Limited 

GEN/RELG/07/1384 07 1384 Dobson 

OTH/HEAL/07/1412 07 1412 Woking Area Primary Care Trust 

GEN/RELG/07/2017 07 2017 Churches Together in Camberley 

MISC/CONS/07/1904 07 1904 Cathedral Holdings Ltd. 

MISC/CONS/07/1307 07 1307 Carter Jonas 

MISC/HA/07/1401 07 1401 Accent Peerless Ltd 

MISC/RESI/07/2075 07 2075 Fraser 

MISC/BUSI/07/1402 07 1402 Andreas STIHL Ltd 

GEN/DEV/09/0005 09 0005 Taylor Wimpey Developments Ltd 

MISC/DEV/07/1141 07 1141 George Wimpey West London Ltd 

MISC/DEV/07/1201 07 1201 Bancroft Developments 

GEN/MINO/10/0043 10 0043 Gay Surrey 

OTH/HEAL/07/1222 07 1222 Dyce 

MISC/DEV/08/0013 08 0013 Solutions in Building Ltd 

MISC/BUSI/07/1686 07 1686 Peacock and Smith 

MISC/CONS/07/1171 07 1171 RPS Planning and Development 

MISC/CONS/07/1045 07 1045 

Dickinson BA (Hons) MRTPI ARICS Fland Inst 

MIMgt 

GEN/MINO/10/0040 10 0040 Surrey Deaf Forum 

MISC/VOL/08/0058 08 0058 Henderson 

GEN/COMM/10/0039 10 0039 Surrey Heath Youth Council 

MISC/BUSI/07/1685 07 1685 Surrey Economic Partnership 

MISC/DEV/07/1166 07 1166 Swan Hill Homes Ltd 

MISC/RESI/07/1688 07 1688 Arnold 

MISC/DEV/07/1527 07 1527 George Wimpey Southern Ltd 

MISC/BUSI/07/1435 07 1435 Steve Brighty Associates 

MISC/EDUC/07/1236 07 1236 Downs 

MISC/BUSI/07/1255 07 1255 Bull 

MISC/DEV/07/1418 07 1418 Lin Blakely Property Management 

133

MISC/BUSI/07/1287 07 1287 Systematic Software Engineering Ltd 

MISC/OTH/07/1037 07 1037 Wadham and Isherwood 

GEN/COMM/07/1125 07 1125 Tekels Park Estate Ltd 

MISC/CONS/07/1861 07 1861 BJC - Bryan Jezeph Consultancy Ltd 

MISC/GOV/07/1022 07 1022 Government Oil Pipelines 

MISC/RESI/07/2065 07 2065 Braine 

MISC/CONS/07/1863 07 1863 Westwaddy ADP 

MISC/DEV/07/1170 07 1170 Bovis Homes Ltd 

GEN/COMM/07/1462 07 1462 The Mytchett Community Association 

MISC/SPOR/09/0003 09 0003 The Lawn Tennis Association 

MISC/SPOR/10/0034 10 0034 Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) 

MISC/DEV/10/0007 10 0007 Arcadia Ventures (Southern) Ltd 

MISC/DEV/10/0030 10 0030 EC Harris LLP 

GEN/RELG/07/1121 07 1121 Our Lady Queen of Heaven, Frimley 

MISC/BUSI/07/1193 07 1193 BOC Group plc 

MISC/DEV/08/0023 08 0023 Rail Estate 

MISC/DEV/08/0023 08 0023 Rail Estate 

GEN/RELG/07/1075 07 1075 St Peter's Church, Frimley 

GEN/RELG/07/1186 07 1186 Micklethwaite 

GEN/RELG/07/1288 07 1288 The Brook Church 

MISC/HEAL/07/1446 07 1446 Park Road Surgery 

GEN/RELG/07/1270 07 1270 St Anne's Church C of E 

GEN/RELG/07/1421 07 1421 The Parish Church of St Michael Yorktown 

GEN/COMM/07/1344 07 1344 Sheldon 

GEN/COMM/07/1433 07 1433 Edwards 

OTH/HEAL/07/1106 07 1106 Health Promotion Service 

MISC/INDV/07/2084 07 2084 Lee 

MISC/MP/07/1907 07 1907 Sealy 

OTH/UTIL/07/1319 07 1319 Network Rail 

MISC/GOV/07/1098 07 1098 Kendrick 

OTH/BUSI/07/1885 07 1885 Hyde 

MISC/CONS/08/0036 08 0036 Robert Stephens and Company Ltd 

MISC/BUSI/07/1282 07 1282 Meridian Broadcasting 

MISC/DEV/07/1159 07 1159 George Wimpey 

MISC/DEV/07/1104 07 1104 Annington Developments Ltd 

GEN/EDUC/08/0024 08 0024 Surrey Heath Community Learning Partnerships 

MISC/BUSI/07/1341 07 1341 McKenzie 

MISC/BUSI/07/1135 07 1135 Harvey 

MISC/BUSI/07/1405 07 1405 Elmer 

GEN/BUSI/07/1942 07 1942 MOTest 

MISC/CONS/07/2021 07 2021 Lambert Smith Hampton 

MISC/UTIL/07/1158 07 1158 Surrey Waste Management Services 

MISC/RESI/07/2000 07 2000 McDonald 

MISC/RESI/08/0086 08 0086 Anthony 

MISC/EDUC/07/1153 07 1153 Kings International College for Business & The Arts 

MISC/BUSI/07/1927 07 1927 Toshiba Electronics Europe 

MISC/BUSI/07/1935 07 1935 Herrington & Carmichael 

MISC/BUSI/07/1403 07 1403 Heathtecna 

MISC/RESI/07/1811 07 1811 Trice 

MISC/RESI/07/1649 07 1649 Campion 

MISC/BUSI/07/1115 07 1115 British Institute of Innkeeping 

MISC/BUSI/07/1136 07 1136 Three Counties Dog Training School 

MISC/CONS/07/1805 07 1805 DPP - Development Planning Partnership 

MISC/BUSI/07/1369 07 1369 Cave 

MISC/CONS/07/1796 07 1796 Alliance Environment & Planning 

MISC/CONS/07/1994 07 1994 Alliance Environment and Planning Ltd 

134

MISC/RESI/07/1189 07 1189 Nobbs 

MISC/RESI/07/1494 07 1494 King 

OTH/UTIL/07/1596 07 1596 EDF ENERGY 

MISC/BUSI/07/1069 07 1069 Ascot Contructions Ltd 

MISC/RESI/07/1767 07 1767 Westcott 

OTH/HEAL/07/1346 07 1346 Surrey Heath & Woking PCT 

GEN/RESI/07/1983 07 1983 Day 

OTH/INDV/08/0077 08 0077 Ivens 

MISC/BUSI/07/1167 07 1167 J Higham Associates 


MISC/BUSI/07/1212 07 1212 Kitchen Kapers 

MISC/BUSI/07/1352 07 1352 London Clancy 

MISC/BUSI/08/0050 08 0050 Associated Property Limited 

MISC/CONS/07/1372 07 1372 Leigh & Glennie 

MISC/CONS/09/0002 09 0002 Batcheller Thacker 

MISC/OTH/07/1058 07 1058 RMA Sandhurst 

MISC/RA/07/1126 07 1126 Tekels Avenue Residents Association Limited 

OTH/HEAL/07/1318 07 1318 Hinton 

OTH/UTIL/07/1516 07 1516 TAG Farnborough Airport 

MISC/CLLR/10/0060 10 60 Tibbles 

MISC/CLLR/10/0061 10 60 Davies 

MISC/BUSI/07/1051 07 1051 Notcutts Ltd DPP LLP 

MISC/OTH/07/1852 07 1852 

National Offender Management Service 

(NOMS) 

Lambert Smith 

Hampton 

MISC/BUSI/07/1854 07 1854 PB Oil (UK) Ltd Rapleys LLP 

MISC/DEV/07/1297 07 1297 Charles Church (Southern) Limited DPP 

MISC/BUSI/07/1900 07 1900 Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd 

White Young Green 

Planning 

MISC/DEV/07/1798 07 1798 Kier Property Limited Gerald Eve 

MISC/BUSI/07/1797 07 1797 FC Brown 

David Hickson 

Associates 

MISC/DEV/07/1776 07 1776 Crest Nicholson Developments Limited Barton Willmore LLP 

MISC/ENV/07/1172 07 1172 Future Energy Solutions Terence O'Rourke 

MISC/DEV/07/2004 07 2004 McKay Securities Group Indigo Planning 

MISC/HEAL/07/1378 07 1378 Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust Vail Williams LLP 

MISC/CONS/08/0002 08 0002 Merlin Danesmount Vail Williams 

MISC/HEAL/07/1333 07 1333 

Frimley Park Hospital NHS Foundation 

Trust 

Vail Williams LLP 

MISC/DEV/07/2016 07 2016 Gondala Holdings RSA 

MISC/DEV/07/1789 07 1789 McCarthy and Stone Ltd Planning Bureau Ltd 

MISC/DEV/07/1803 07 1803 Fairview New Homes Ltd RPS plc 

MISC/BUSI/07/1855 07 1855 Wm Morrisons Rapleys LLP 

MISC/BUSI/08/0001 08 0001 Tesco Stores Limited 

Nathaniel Lichfield and 

Partners 

MISC/BUSI/08/0030 08 0030 The Mall Corporation Savills Commercial Ltd 

OTH/OTH/09/0006 09 0006 Crown Golf Terence O'Rourke 

MISC/BUSI/08/0117 08 0117 

Albermarle Fairoaks Ltd & Royal Bank 

of Scotland 

Gerald Eve 

MISC/BUSI/08/0118 08 0118 Fairoaks Airport Limited Savills 

MISC/DEV/08/0005 08 0005 Coast Properties (Bagshot) Ltd Rapleys LLP 

MISC/OTH/10/0026 10 0026 Eton College 

BNP Paribas Real 

Estate 

MISC/BUSI/08/0084 08 0084 The Shorstan Company Ltd Leigh & Glennie 

MISC/INDV/08/0085 08 0085 V Segalini Leigh & Glennie 

MISC/BUSI/08/0094 08 0094 Kier Property Developments Maddox & Associates 

MISC/BUSI/08/0113 08 0113 Costco Wholesale UK Limited RPS Planning & 

135

Development 

MISC/BUSI/08/0114 08 0114 Wilky Fund Management 

Berwin Leighton 

Paisner LLP 

MISC/DEV/10/0033 10 0033 Aviva Investors Barton Willmore LLP 

MISC/DEV/10/0009 10 0009 Bellway Homes RPS Planning 

136

Letter to Specifics 

137

Letter to Generals and Other Stakeholders 

138

Appendix O – Publication DPD – Copy of Statutory Notices 

139

140

Appendix P – Publication DPD – web-page 

141

142

Appendix Q – Publication DPD – Summary of Responses 

Repres 

entor 

No 

Rep No 

Plan/ 

Policy 

Refere 

nce 

Surname/Orga 

nisation 

Title 

/ 

Initi 

als 

Element 

of 

soundnes 

s 

Brief summary of change being sought 

001 

001/01/LPH12/ 

1 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H12 

Bain 

Mr 

W 

Not 

effective 

Objects to deletion. Affordable homes should be protected and criteria should 

be price as well as scale. 

001 001/02/DM4/2 DM4 Bain 

Mr 

W 

Not 

effective 

Should include a criteria on plot size. 

002 

002/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Ivens Mr B Support 

Supports deletion of Housing reserve Site at Windlesham and inclusion within 

Green Belt 

003 

003/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Kegge Mr J Support 

Supports deletion of Housing reserve Site at West End and inclusion within 

Green Belt 

004 004/01/CP5/2 CP5 Cowan Mr H 

Not 

effective 

Affordable housing should not be integrated with new developments but built 

separately 

004 004/02/CP11/2 CP11 Cowan Mr H 

Not 

effective 

Failure to identify how peak hour traffic congestion on A322 at approaches to 

Junction 3 of the M3 motorway will be addressed 

004 004/03/CP11/2 CP11 Cowan Mr H 

Not 

effective 

Failure to identify plan for strengthening flood defences 

143

005 

005/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Nicholls 

Mrs 

L 

Support 


Green Belt 

006 

007 

006/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

007/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Hopkins 

Young 

Mr 

M 

Mr 

KR 

& 

Mrs 

MPJ 

Support 

Support 


Green Belt 


Green Belt 

008 

008/01/CP1/1& 

2 

CP1 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Policy is vague and replicated other legislation such as the Building 

Regulations. Proposal to provide only one major housing development means 

policy aims will not be realised. 

008 

008/02/CP2/1& 

2 

CP2 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Policy is vague and replicated other legislation such as the Building 

Regulations. Proposal to provide only one major housing development means 

policy aims will not be realised. 

144

008 

008/03/CP3/1& 

2 

CP3 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Is proposal in paragraph 5.13 appropriate location for SANGS, what 

alternatives have been considered and why is one not being sought in the east 

of the Borough. Core strategy should include SANGS criteria within the Core 

Strategy. 

008 

008/04/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Site is isolated and unsustainable, and road system is inadequate. Given 

improvements required is development at this site viable 

008 

008/05/CP5/1& 

2 

CP5 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Level of affordable housing will ensure most developments unvialbe. 

Requiring developers demonstare why schemes are unviable is unreasonable 

and undulty onerous. 

008 

008/06/CP6/1& 

2 

CP6 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Does not reflect aspirations of purchasers or the need for rented housing. 

145

008 

008/07/CP8/1& 

2 

CP8 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Councils aims to increase employment will be undermined by car parking 

charging policies. 

008 

008/08/CP10/1 

&2 

CP10 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

No justification for the amount of new floorspace being sought given current 

vacancy rates and the growth of internet shopping. 

008 

008/09/CP11/1 

&2 

CP11 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Complying with Council car parking standards may discourage redevelopment. 

Financial constraints will ensure a lack of funds for new infrastructure. 

008 

008/10/CP12/1 

&2 

CP12 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

A requirement for excessive infrastructure contributions will stifle new 

development. 

146

008 

008/11/CP14/1 

&2 

CP14 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Requirement for provision of SANGS prior to occupation is unreasonable. 

008 

008/12/DM2/1& 

2 

DM2 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Chobham should not be washed over by Green Belt. 

008 

008/13/DM3/1& 

2 

DM3 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Equestrian buildings frequently unattractive, policy should encourage 

replacement. 

008 

008/14/DM4/1& 

2 

DM4 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Requires further clarification of what represents a materially larger dwelling. 

Why does this policy also not apply to dwellings in the Green Belt rather than 

relying on PPG2. 

147

Will the Council identify sites in settlement areas 

008 

008/15/DM6/1& 

2 

DM6 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

008 

008/16/DM7/1& 

2 

DM7 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

This policy incorporates requirements covered by other legislation. Will this 

policy require the submission of further costly reports by developers. 

Definition of zero carbon required. 

This policy incorporates requirements covered by other legislation. How are 

criteria vii and viii addressed 

008 

008/17/DM9/1& 

2 

DM9 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

008 

008/18/DM10/1 

&2 

DM10 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Will this policy require the submission of further costly reports by developers. 

There is lack of information from the Council and the Environment agency 

requirements are unreasonable. 

148

Developer should only pay where directly related otherwise should only be 

required not to prejudice. 

008 

008/19/DM11/1 

&2 

DM11 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Criteria ii does not make sense.Paragraph 6.80 should allow for reduction in 

extent of centres and parades reflecting market trends. 

008 

008/20/DM12/1 

&2 

DM12 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Would a business in category ii be located anywhere other than core 

employment areas 

008 

008/21/DM13/1 

&2 

DM13 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Will small sites be required to provide a financial contribution 

008 

008/22/DM16/1 

&2 

DM16 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

149

Grossly unreasonable to require archaeological assessments on sites as small 

as 0.4 ha. 

008 

008/23/DM17/1 

&2 

DM17 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

008 

008/24/App2/1& 

2 

Append 

ix 2 

Maps 

3A and 

3B 

Gilfrin 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

If low density policy areas are being deleted why bother including maps 3A 

and 3B. 

009 

009/01/Profile/1 

&2 

District 

Profile 

Para 

2.27 

South East 

Water 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Para 2.27 does not reflect water supply situation in the Borough. The Core 

Strategy should reflect the new Water Resource Management Plan 

009 009/02/CP2/S CP2 

South East 

Water 

Support 

Welcomes commitment to secure water efficiency in new development or 

secure efficiencies in existing development. 

009 009/03/CP4/S CP4 

South East 

Water 

Support Welcomes requirement to achieve water efficiency in line with Code Level 6. 

009 009/04/CP10/S CP10 

South East 

Water 

Support Welcomes requirement to achieve water efficiency in line with Code Level 6. 

150

009 009/05/CP12/2 CP12 

South East 

Water 

Not 

effective 

Policy should provide support for provision of additional water supply 

infrastructure. 

009 009/06/App4/S 

Append 

ix 4: 

Objecti 

ve 10 

009 009/07/DM9/S DM9 

South East 

Water 

South East 

Water 

Support 

Support 

Imperative to ensure that policies seeking to impose water efficiency 

standards are implemented and monitored. 

Welcomes requirement to achieve water efficiency in line with Code for 

Sustainable Homes. 

010 010/01/CP12/2 CP12 

Bachmann 

Trust Ltd & ADL 

One Ltd 

Not 

effective 

Core Strategy fails to comply with Planning and Compensation Act 2004 by 

denying objectors the right to comment on the IDP. Fails to provide evidence 

to support retention of a policy to re-instate the rail link. 

011 011/01/CP3/1 CP3 Donald 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

justified 

Target of 2,600 homes for the Borough arbitrary and a hangover from the 

RSS. Ignores wishes of local people and capacity of local infrastructure. 

011 

011/02/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Donald 

Mrs 

J 

Support 


Green Belt 

012 012/01/CP3/1 CP3 Gray 

Mrs 

C 

Not 

justified 



151

012 

012/02/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Gray 

Mrs 

C 

Support 


Green Belt 

013 013/01/CP3/1 CP3 Green Mr C 

Not 

justified 



013 

013/02/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Green Mr C Support 


Green Belt 

014 014/01/CP3/1 CP3 Mallindine 

Mrs 

A 

Not 

justified 



014 

014/02/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Mallindine 

Mrs 

A 

Support 


Green Belt 

015 015/01/CP3/1 CP3 Robinson Mr G 

Not 

justified 



015 

015/02/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Robinson 

Mr G Support 


Green Belt 

152

016 016/01/CP3/1 CP3 Scrutton 

Miss 

K 

Not 

justified 



016 

016/02/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Scrutton 

Miss 

K 

Support 


Green Belt 

017 017/01/CP3/1 CP3 Skyrme 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

justified 



017 

017/02/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Skyrme 

Mrs 

J 

Support 


Green Belt 

018 018/01/CP3/1 CP3 Skyrme Mr N 

Not 

justified 



018 

018/02/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Skyrme Mr N Support 


Green Belt 

019 019/01/CP3/1 CP3 Wretham Mr K 

Not 

justified 



153

019 

019/02/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Wretham Mr K Support 

020 020/01/DM14/S DM14 Theatres Trust Support 


Green Belt 

Request inclusion of definition of definition of cultural and community facilities 

in para 6.91 to be included in Glossary of Terms 

021 

021/01/DM2/1& 

2 

022 022/01/Intro/2 

DM2 

Introdu 

ction 

Baker 

Chobham 

Parish Council 

Mrs 

R 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Not 

effective 

Paragraph 6.18 seeking change to the text to ensure housebuilding in the 

Green Belt is resisted. 

Assessment of impact of DERA site should be included. 

022 022/02/Profile/1 

022 

022/03/ 

Profile/1 

022 022/04/Profile/1 

022 022/05/Profile/1 

District 

Profile 

Para 

2.1 

District 

Profile 

Para 

2.2 

District 

Profile 

Para 

2.24 

District 

Profile 

Para 

2.31 

Chobham 


Chobham 


Chobham 


Chobham 


Not 

justified 

Not 

justified 

Not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

River Bourne runs into River Thames not River Wey 

Bisley is smallest village not Chobham. 

Reference to quality of bus services is misleading as service in Chobham is 

declining rather than poor and should be improved. 

Chobham has five halls including Chobham Village Hall and this should be 

cited on the list. 

154

022 022/06/Vision/2 

Vision 

para 

4.7 

Chobham 


Not 

effective 

Unsafe to predict trend toward increasing dormitory settlements in villages due 

to impact of climate change and energy constraining economic growth. 

022 

022/07/CP3/1& 

2 

CP3 

Chobham 


Not 

justified or 

effective 

Level of growth proposed is not deliverable and inconsistent with Policy CP1 

and Green belt status 

022 022/08/CP5/1 CP5 

Chobham 


Not 

justified 

Para 5.27 contains error in annual shortfall of affordable units in context of 

local housing target. 

022 022/09/CP6/2 CP6 

Chobham 


Not 

effective 

Para 5.36 abandonement of small dwellings policy will undermine availability 

of starter homes for young people in the village and challenges type and mix 

of housing proposed elsewhere. 

022 022/10/CP7/1 CP7 

Chobham 


Not 

justified 

Parish supports no provision for Travelling Showpeople and considers that 

paragraph 5.41 in suggesting review of the assessment of need is 

inappropriate. 

022 022/11/CP9/2 CP9 

Chobham 


Not 

effective 

What is a polycentric sub-regional context. 

022 

022/12/CP11/1 

&2 

CP11 

Chobham 


Not 

justified or 

effective 

Policy fails to recognise needs of rural villages and ecline in rural bus services 

needs to be halted. Further the policy makes no reference to the impact of 

DERA on traffic and transport in the Borough. 

155

022 022/13/DM4/2 DM4 

022 022/14/DM6/2 DM6 

Chobham 


Chobham 


Not 

effective 

Not 

effective 

Use of term 'original dwelling' is ambiguous. 

What is PDL. 

023 

023/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/1 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Glazier 

Mr P 

Not 

justified 

Area already identified as appropriate for development and may be needed if 

Deepcut does not become available. 

024 024/01/CP4/1 CP4 Carroll 

Mr 

R & 

Mrs 

D 

Not 

justified 

Object to development of site because the site is isolated and unsustainable, 

roads need significant improvements as does public transport. 

025 025/01/Intro/1 

Introdu 

ction 

Daley 

KA 

Not 

justified 

Criterion (v) where is the justification for this target in the absence of the South 

east Plan. Criterion (viii) minimum densities in the RSS and PPS3 have been 

abandoned why is 40dph still being suggested. 

025 025/02/Intro/1 

Introdu 

ction 

Daley 

KA 

Not 

justified 

Has the Core Strategy taken into account the option to not meet the housing 

requirement of the South East Plan. 

025 025/03/CP3/1 CP3 Daley KA 

Not 

justified 

If the number of dwellings proposed are provided there will be significant 

oversupply of housing. 

156

025 025/04/cp4/1 CP4 Daley KA 

Not 

justified 

1200 homes is not a rural village, the proposed supermarket is too large, 

significant highway improvements would be required on already congested 

local roads, the site is isolated and unsustainable, affordable housing should 

be distributed throughout the development . Development should fund 

Basingstoke Canal. 

025 025/05/CP7/2 CP7 Daley KA 

Not 

effective 

No indication that exisiting sites can accommodate extra pitches or where else 

these might go. 

026 026/01/CP4/1 CP4 Woods 

Mr & 

Mrs 

A 

Not 

justified 

1200 homes at 33 dph is not a rural village, the proposed supermarket is too 

large, significant highway improvements would be required on already 

congested local roads, the site is isolated and unsustainable, affordable 

housing should be distributed throughout the development. 

027 

027/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Moore 

J & 

S 

Support 


Green Belt 

028 028/01/CP4/1 CP4 Lamb Mr D 

Not 

justified 



congested local roads, the site is isolated and unsustainable. 

157

029 029/01/CP4/1 CP4 Kempston Mr R 

Not 

justified 



congested local roads, the site is isolated and unsustainable, new medical 

facilities required to support increased population, St Barbara’s Church should 

be retained. 

029 

029/02/KeyDiag 

ram/2 

Key 

Diagra 

m 

Kempston 

Mr R 

Not 

effective 

Key Diagram should show area between Deepcut Strategic Development Site 

and Frimley/Frimley Green Primary Development Location as protected to 

maintain buffer between Deepcut and Frimley 

030 030/01/CP4/1 CP4 Baker 

Mrs 

M 

Not 

justified 




housing should be distributed throughout the development. Restrictions 

should be put in place to prevent any further new development other than 

improvements to existing properties. 

031 031/01/CP4/1 CP4 Deach Mr P 

Not 

justified 




housing should be distributed throughout the development 

158

032 032/01/CP4/1 CP4 

Chignell & 

Frazer- 

McRobert 

Mrs 

A & 

Mr R 

Not 

justified 




housing should be distributed throughout the development . Local schools, 

doctors and dentists practices are already at peak capacity. 

033 033/01/CP4/1 CP4 Stokes Mr D 

Not 

justified 




034 

034/01/DM2/1& 

2 

DM2 Baker Mr S 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Policy as worded allows for building of housing on Green belt land. Suggests 

amended policy wording to resist such development. 

034 034/02/CP14/2 CP14 Baker Mr S 

Not 

effective 

400m buffer should be increased to 800 m . 

035 

035/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/1 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Fuller 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

justified 



036 

036/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Cameron Mr I Support 


Green Belt 

159

036 036/02/CP3/1 CP3 Cameron Mr I 

Not 

Justified 



037 

037/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Esperanza 

Mrs 

S 

Support 


Green Belt 

037 037/02/CP3/1 CP3 Esperanca 

Mrs 

S 

Not 

Justified 



038 

038/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Gilfrin 

Ms 

S 

Support 


Green Belt 

039 039/01/CP3/2 CP3 Crown Golf 

Not 

Effective 

Core strategy should identify contingency sites in the event that PRB Deepcut 

does not materialise. Pine Ridge Golf course should be identified as a 

contingency site for 200 units 

040 

040/01/CP10/1 

&2 

CP10 

Rushmoor 

Borough 

Council 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Not effective because not coherent with Rushmoor BC retail policies and not 

justified because of harmful impact upon vitality and viability of Farnborough 

and Aldershot Town centres. 

160

041 041/01/CP4/1 CP4 Rushmer 

Mr & 

Mrs 

DC 

Not 

justified 




042 042/01/CP4/1 CP4 Curtis 

Mrs 

K 

Not 

justified 




043 043/01/CP4/1 CP4 Curtis Mr J 

Not 

justified 




044 044/01/CP4/1 CP4 Woolner Mr I 

Not 

justified 

1200 homes is too many. 

045 045/01/CP4/1 CP4 Spong 

Miss 

CA 

Not 

justified 




161

046 046/01/CP4/1 CP4 Davies 

Mr & 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

justified 




047 047/01/CP4/1 CP4 Brown Mr D 

Not 

justified 

1200 homes too high for a rural village, major highway improvements required, 

large supermarket not consistent with rural village, there is a need for more 

schools and GP services. 

048 048/01/DM2/1 DM2 Carfrae Mr P 

Not 

justified or 

effective 

Policy as worded allows for building of housing on Green belt land. Suggests 

amended policy wording to resist such development. 

049 049/01/CP4/1 CP4 Brown Mr C 

Not 

justified 

Use of site for housing ill concieved, local roads can't cope with more traffic, 

result will not be a rural village. 

050 

050/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/1 

Local 

plan 

Policy 

H8 

Quigley 

Mrs 

S 

Not 

justified 



051 

051/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/1 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Elmer 

Mr R 

Not 

justified 



162

052 052/01/CP4/1 CP4 Mitchell Mr N 

Not 

justified 

The proposed supermarket is too large, significant highway improvements 

would be required on already congested local roads, affordable housing 

should be distributed throughout the development. 

053 053/01/CP4/1 CP4 Eccles 

Ms 

G 

Not 

justified 




housing should be distributed throughout the development . 

054 054/01/CP4/1 CP4 Modha Mr B 

Not 

justified 





055 055/01/CP4/1 CP4 Morgan 

Mrs 

L 

Not 

justified 





163

056 056/01/CP10/S CP10 Rail Estate Support Note CP10 reinforces and promotes growth of Camberley. 

056 056/02/CP11/S CP11 Rail Estate Support Support proposals to improve public transport in Camberley. 

056 056/03/CP12/2 CP12 Rail Estate 

Not 

effective 

Disappointed that Camberley Station redevelopment not identified in IDP and 

is delayed by lack of SANGS for SPA 

057 057/01/ CP4/1 CP4 Ross 

Mr & 

Mrs 

MH 

Not 

justified 

Roads around Depcut cannot cope with traffic generated by 1200 new homes. 

058 058/01/CP4/1 CP4 Smart 

Mrs 

DK 

Not 

justified 

Roads around Depcut cannot cope with traffic generated by 1200 new homes. 

059 059/01/CP4/1 CP4 

Dettingen Park 

Residents 

Committee 

Not 

justified 





060 060/01/CP4/1 CP4 Bryant 

Mr & 

Mrs 

C 

Not 

justified 





164

061 061/01/CP4/1 CP4 Corser 

Mrs 

M 

Not 

justified 





062 062/01/CP4/1 CP4 Smith 

Lesl 

ey 

Not 

justified 





063 063/01/CP4/1 CP4 Sharp 

Ms 

M 

Not 

justified 





165

064 064/01/CP4/1 CP4 Wale Mr C 

Not 

justified 





065 065/01/CP4/1 CP4 Hutchison Mr D 

Not 

justified 

Significant highway improvements would be required on already congested 

local roads, Frimley Park Hospital and Frimley Green Doctors Surgery would 

struggle to cope with the increase in population. 

066 066/01/CP4/1 CP4 Bean 

Mr & 

Mrs 

Not 

justified 



congested local roads, affordable housing should be distributed throughout 

the development, emphasis should be given to protection of the Basingstoke 

Canal, public transport improvements needed. 

166

067 067/01/CP4/1 CP4 North Mr A 

Not 

justified 





068 068/01/CP4/1 CP4 Matthews 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

justified 





069 069/01/CP4/1 CP4 Newman Mr G 

Not 

justified 




housing should be distributed throughout the development, existing utilities 

(waterworks / reservoirs) may not be sufficient, additional education provision 

should be provided through developer contributions. 

167

070 070/01/CP4/1 CP4 Hastings 

Mr & 

Mrs 

R 

Not 

justified 





071 071/01/CP4/1 CP4 Cox 

Ms 

M 

Not 

justified 



congested local roads. 

072 072/01/CP4/1 CP4 Aldrich 

Ms 

P 

Not 

justified 




housing should be distributed throughout the development, health 

infrastructure needs further consideration 

073 073/01/CP4/1 CP4 Plimmer Mr C 

Not 

justified 





168

074 074/01/CP4/1 CP4 Draycott 

Mrs 

H M 

Not 

justified 





075 075/01/CP4/1 CP4 Greenway Mr P 

Not 

justified 




housing should be distributed throughout the development, consideration 

should be given to re-opening of Bisley branch line from Brookwood station. 

076 076/01/CP4/1 CP4 Wherry 

Mr 

DH 

Not 

justified 

1200 homes at 33 dph is not a rural village, significant highway improvements 

would be required on already congested local roads, affordable housing 

should be distributed throughout the development. 

169

077 077/01/CP4/1 CP4 Wallis 

Mr & 

Mrs 

A 

Not 

justified 





078 078/01/CP4/1 CP4 Galloway 

Ms 

S 

Not 

justified 





079 079/01/CP4/1 CP4 

Mytchett, 

Frimley Green 

and Deepcut 

Society 

Not 

justified 


local roads, the site is isolated and unsustainable, development may put 

pressure on healthcare facilities and water resources, Basingstoke Canal 

maintenance requires adequate funding. 

170

079 079/02/CP14/2 CP14 

Mytchett, 

Frimley Green 

and Deepcut 

Society 

Not 

effective 

It is contended that proposed mitigation measures for the Thames Basin 

Heaths in the form of SANGS are not effective or proven. 

079 

079/03/HRA/2& 

3 

HRA 

Mytchett, 

Frimley Green 

and Deepcut 

Society 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

There are numerous flaws throughout the HRA, one suc being that the entire 

approach is out of date. The precautionary principle must be applied correctly. 

080 080/01/CP3/1 CP3 Kingsley 

Miss 

S 

Not 

justified 

No evidence to support target of 3,333 homes for the Borough - this is a 

hangover from the RSS. Need to address issue of unoccupied dwellings. 

080 080/02/CP4/1 CP4 Kingsley 

Miss 

S 

Not 

justified 





171

081 081/01/CP4/1 CP4 Lacey Mrs 

Not 

justified 





082 082/01/CP4/1 CP4 Schultze 

Tatja 

na 

Not 

justified 





083 083/01/CP4/1 CP4 Burrow 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified 





172

084 084/01/CP4/1 CP4 Stevens 

Mr & 

Mrs 

Not 

justified 





085 085/01/CP4/1 CP4 Watt 

Mrs 

C 

Not 

justified 



congested local roads, additional utilities may be required, the site is isolated 

and unsustainable, affordable housing should be distributed throughout the 

development. 

086 086/01/CP4/1 CP4 Brydges 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified 




housing should be distributed throughout the development, playing field 

adjacent to Woodend Road should be maintained. 

173

087 087/01/CP4/1 CP4 Crocker 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

justified 





088 088/01/CP4/1 CP4 Gray 

Mr & 

Mrs 

Not 

justified 

Green spaces should be maintained, the proposed supermarket is too large, 

significant highway improvements would be required on already congested 

local roads, public transport needs improvement, affordable housing should 

be distributed throughout the development. 

089 089/01/CP4/1 CP4 Franklin 

Ms 

D 

Not 

justified 


local roads, development could place pressure on schools, health services, 

childrens's services and water and power supply. 

090 090/01/CP4/1 CP4 Gray Mr A 

Not 

justified 

1200 homes at 33 dph is not a rural village, significant highway improvements 

would be required on already congested local roads, the site is isolated and 

unsustainable,. 

174

091 091/01/CP4/1 CP4 Theoharris 

Ms 

A 

Not 

justified 


local roads, improvements to public transport will be required, proposed 

supermarket is too large and will attract further traffic, affordable housing 

should be ditributed throughout the development, site is isolated and 

unsustainable. 

092 092/01/CP4/1 CP4 Wells Mr D 

Not 

justified 


local roads, improvements to public transport will be required, proposed 

supermarket is too large and will attract further traffic and if built in an isolated 

location may attract crime, affordable housing should be ditributed throughout 

the development, site is isolated and unsustainable. 

093 093/01/CP4/1 CP4 Edgar 

Mr & 

Mrs 

Not 

justified 





175

094 094/01/CP4/1 CP4 

Deepcut 

Liaison Group 

Not 

justified 

1200 homes at 33 dph is not a rural village, and has increased from 900 units 

originally discussed, the proposed supermarket is too large, significant 

highway improvements would be required on already congested local roads, 

the site is isolated and unsustainable, affordable housing should be 

distributed throughout the development. 

095 095/01/CP4/1 CP4 Winterburn 

Mr C 

& 

Mrs 

M 

Not 

justified 

Traffic in area is already at saturation point and existing highway network, 

hospital service, doctors surgery and schools could not support additional 

dwellings proposed. 

096 096/01/CP4/1 CP4 Laremore 

Mr & 

Mrs 

Not 

justified 




097 097/01/CP4/1 CP4 

Blackwater 

Valley Friends 

of the Earth 

Not 

justified 

Policy does not adequately demonstrate that the development can be made 

sustainable and is therefore in contradiction with CP11 - Movement. 

Environmental and transport background studies are required. 

176

098 098/01/CP4/1 CP4 Ellis 

Dr & 

Mrs 

Bria 

n 

Not 

justified 

Failure to address impact on road networks. Public transport improvemenrs 

will not compensate for additional vehicles. Location unsustainable. 

099 099/01/CP4/1 CP4 Hearn Ms J 

Not 

justified 

With the addition of 1200 homes and accompanying facilities Deepcut will not 

be a rural village, increased population would result in more congestion on 

already congested local roads. 

100 100/01/CP4/1 CP4 Dilkes Mr P 

Not 

justified 



congested local roads, the site is isolated and unsustainable, proposed 

development is adjacent to and may negatively impact on SSSIs, affordable 

housing requirement is unsubstantiated. 

101 

101/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Young 

Mrs 

M 

Support 


Green Belt 

101 101/02/CP3/1 CP3 Young 

Mrs 

M 

Not 

justified 



102 

102/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Young Mr K Support 

Supports deletion of Housing Reserve Site at West End and inclusion within 

Green Belt 

177

102 102/02/CP3/1 CP3 Young Mr K 

Not 

justified 



103 103/01/CP4/1 CP4 Davies Mr D 

Not 

justified 




housing requirement is unsubstantiated. 

104 

104/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/1 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Sadler 

Mrs 

L 

Support 


Green Belt 

104 104/02/CP3/1 CP3 Sadler 

Mrs 

L 

Not 

justified 



105 

105/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/1 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Haslam 

Mrs 

E V 

Not 

justified 



106 

106/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Moore Mr S Support 


Green Belt 

106 106/02/CP3/1 CP3 Moore Mr S 

Not 

justified 



178

107 

107/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Moore 

Mrs 

J 

Support 


Green Belt 

107 107/02/CP3/1 CP3 Moore 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

justified 



108 

108/01/Local 

Plan Policy H8/I 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Beswick 

Mrs 

P 

Not 

justified 



109 

109/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Langston Mr B Support 


Green Belt 

109 109/02/CP3/1 CP3 Langston Mr B 

Not 

justified 



110 

110/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Langston 

Mrs 

J 

Support 


Green Belt 

110 110/02/CP3/1 CP3 Langston 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

justified 



179

111 

111/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

West End 

Village society 

Support 


Green Belt 

111 111/02/CP3/1 CP3 

West End 

Village society 

Not 

justified 



112 

112/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Gumbrell Mr A Support 


Green Belt 

112 112/02/CP3/1 CP3 Gumbrell Mr A 

Not 

justified 



113 

113/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/1 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Hanks 

Mr G 

Not 

justified 

Site should remain identified for housing in accordance with decisions of 

previous Local Plan Inspectors 

113 113/02/CP1/1 CP1 Hanks Mr G 

Not 

justified 

Spatial strategy is too prescriptive and could effectively sterilise some areas, 

growth should be allowed across the Borough. 

113 113/03/CP3/1 CP3 Hanks Mr G 

Not 

justified 

Reduction for SEP housing figures is unjustified and scale oh housing 

proposed is insufficient. 

180

114 

114/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Catley Mr D Support 


Green Belt 

115 

115/01/Key 

Diagram/2 

Key 

Diagra 

m 

West End 

Village Design 

Statement 

Steering Group 

Not 

effective 

Site are shown as excluded from Green Belt and should be shown as 

included. Accompanied by supporting document reporting of survey of 

residents. 

115 115/02/DM10/2 DM10 

West End 


Statement 


Not 

effective 

Policy should refer to flooding caused by surface water run-off, suggested 

changes to wording included. 

115 115/03/CP3/S CP3 

West End 


Statement 


Support 

115 115/04/CP5/S CP5 

West End 


Statement 


Support 

115 115/05/CP13/S CP13 

West End 


Statement 


Support 

115 115/06/CP14/S CP14 

West End 


Statement 


Support 

115 115/07/DM11/S DM11 

West End 


Statement 


Support 

181

116 

116/01/Key 

Diagram/2 

Key 

Diagra 

m 

Douch 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

effective 

Site are shown as excluded from Green Belt and should be shown as 

included. 

116 116/02/DM10/2 DM10 Douch 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

effective 

Policy should refer to flooding caused by surface water run-off, suggested 

changes to wording included. 

116 

117 

116/03/Glossar 

y/2 

117/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Glossar 

y 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Douch 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

effective 

Wells Mr F Support 

Definition of biodiversity is incorrect. 


Green Belt 

117 117/02/CP3/1 CP3 Wells Mr F 

Not 

justified 



118 

118/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Higgins 

Mrs 

C 

Support 


Green Belt 

118 118/02/CP3/1 CP3 Higgins 

Mrs 

C 

Not 

justified 



119 

119/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Higgins 

Mr 

M 

Support 


Green Belt 

182

119 119/02/CP3/1 CP3 Higgins 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified 



120 

120/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Chedd 

Mr 

M 

Support 


Green Belt 

120 120/02/CP3/1 CP3 Chedd 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified 



121 

121/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Pearman 

Mrs 

S 

Support 


Green Belt 

121 121/02/CP3/1 CP3 Pearman 

Mrs 

S 

Not 

justified 



122 

122/01/Introduc 

tion/1&3 

Introdu 

ction 

West End 


Not 

justified or 

consistent 

with 

natiional 

policy 

Document should acknowledge that community is largest stakeholderand 

recognise government policy on this. Suggested wording included. 

122 

122/02/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

West End 


Support 

Support removal of rserve sites. Better use of sites would be for West End 

Village football Club which would be consistent with green belt policy. 

Supporting document included. 

183

122 

122 

122/03/CP3/1& 

3 

122/04/DM9/1& 

3 

CP3 

DM9 

West End 


West End 


Not 

justified or 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified or 

consistent 

with 

natiional 

policy 

Need more justification of housing numbers and also explanation of what 

being proposed in surrounding areas. Supporting text should include this. 

Policy wording is too vague to provide protection. Density of 40dph is 

overambitious. 

122 

122/05/Omissio 

n/1&3 

Omissi 

on 

West End 


Not 

justified or 

consistent 

with 

natiional 

policy 

Document should commit to inclusion of Village Design Statements within the 

Core Strategy to replace guidance given in Local Plan policies H7, H12, H17, 

H18 and RE3 which are proposed for deletion. 

122 

123 

122/06/CP4/1& 

3 

123/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

CP4 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

West End 


West End 

Action Group 

Not 

justified or 

consistent 

with 

natiional 

policy 

Support 

Deepcut development will have detrimental impact on West End due to 

increases in traffic trying to access motorway network and resulting impact on 

local roads. 


Green Belt 

123 123/02/CP3/1 CP3 

West End 

Action Group 

Not 

justified 



184

124 

124/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Pearman Mr J Support 


Green Belt 

124 124/02/CP3/1 CP3 Pearman Mr J 

Not 

justified 



125 


tion/2 

Introdu 

ction 

Osbourn 

Mr J 

Not 

Effective 

Development of the DERA site and its removal from Green Belt should be a 

major consideration given effects on Chobham and Windlesham 

125 

125/02/LPH12/ 

1&2 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H12 

Osbourn 

Mr J 

Not 

justified & 

not 

effective 

Problem of young people in Chobham not being able to find a home in the 

village will be exacerbated if policy deleted. Stongly urge that policy should be 

maintained 

125 125/03/CP7/1 CP7 Osbourn Mr J 

Not 

justified 

Support Chobham Parish Council's opposition to re-opening of GTAA 

assessment 

125 125/04/CP11/2 CP11 Osbourn Mr J 

Not 

effective 

Reiterate that impact of developing the DERA site should be included in 

supportive statements for Policy CP11 

185

126 126/01/CP4/1 CP4 Piper 

Mr & 

Mrs 

A 

Not 

justified 

Major & significant improvements would need to be made to local roads within 

Deepcut and it will be impossible to sustain 1,200 new homes on this site. 

6,000sqm retail supermarket is too large and will attract more traffic. 

Developers should recognise isolation of site and provide infrastructure 

improvements prior to occupation. 

127 

128 

127/01/Key 

Diagram/1&3 

128/01/key 

Diagram/1 &3 

Key 

Diagra 

m 

Key 

Diagra 

m 

Bacron 

Developmets 

Jenkins 

Mr F 

Not 

justified & 

not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified & 

not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Modify Key Diagram to include land south of M3 and north of Frimley Business 

Park within the Primary Development Location 

Modify key diagram to show Chobham as inset from the Green Belt not 

washed over and retain status as Local Centre 

128 

128/02/CP1/1& 

3 

CP1 Jenkins Mr F 

Not 

justified & 

not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Object to approach to Chobham in CP1 as inappropriate to designate 

Chobham as washed over by the Green Belt. CP1 should be amended with 

the 9th paragraph deleted and 8th paragraph amended to that suggested. 

128 128/03/CP3/1 CP3 Jenkins Mr F 

Not 

justified 

Object to proportion and scale of development allocated to Chobham. Figures 

should be revised to around 100 dwellings (4%). 

186

128 

128/04/CP14/2 

&3 

CP14 Jenkins Mr F 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Policy should take a more positive approach by including a commitmet to seek 

and establish further SANG opportunities and other mitigation measures. 

Policy should be amended to that suggested as well as supporting text at 

paras 5.118/119 and reference to establishing a SANG in eastern area of 

Borough. 

128 128/05/DM2/1 DM2 Jenkins Mr F 

Not 

justified 

In light of objections to CP1 & CP3, consider that DM2 is unnecessary an 

should be deleted. 

128 128/06/DM5/S DM5 Jenkins Mr F Support 

Support the principles set out in DM5, but emphasise that provision of 

affordable housing and asociated benefits will be achieved most efficiently 

through mixed tenure development 

129 

129/01/CP3/1& 

2&3 

CP3 

McKay 

Securities 

Not 

justified,eff 

ective or 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Unsound to place such a large proportion of its new housing on a single site at 

Deepcut where there is no replacement stratgey should the site not come 

forward. Quantum of housing at Deepcut should be reduced and increased in 

other locations. Policy should be amended or deleted. 

129 

129/02/DM2/1 

& 2 

DM2 

McKay 

Securities 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Policy DM2 conflicts with Policy CP3. DM2 does not deal with the issue of new 

residential developmet in Chobham and as such is inconsistent with CP3. 

Policy should be amended by adding a 4th criterion 

187

129 

129/03/DM5/1& 

2 

DM5 

McKay 

Securities 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

DM5 is inconsistent with CP3 as CP3 does not state that 40-60 units allocated 

to Chobham have to be affordable which DM5 suggests. Policy should be 

deleted 

129 

129/04/CP4/1& 

2&3 

CP4 

McKay 

Securities 

Not 

justified, 

not 

effective, 

not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Circular logic in selecting Deepcut for development in order to secure 

infrastructure benefits, site is unsustainable and therefore not consistent with 

PPS1, overreliance on Deepcut as location for new housing. 

130 

130/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

Rt Hon Michael 

Gove MP 

Not 

justified & 

not 

effective 

Isolation of the site from major centres in the Borough and unique nature of 

Deepcut Bridge Road are two good baseline reasons why development should 

not be approved. Traffic increases from the PRB site could not be sustained 

with the current infrasructure. Policy CP4 should be amended as 

recommended. 

131 131/01/CP3/2 CP3 

Highways 

Agency 

Not 

effective 

Appears that the Core Stratgey is still making provision for as much housing 

as was proposed in the South East Plan 

131 131/02/CP4/1 CP4 

Highways 

Agency 

Not 

justified 

Pleased to observe that Policy seeks to address mitigation measures to 

reduce traffic impact, but refer to comments on CP11 

188

131 131/03/CP8/3 CP8 

131 

131/04/CP11/1 

&2&3 

CP11 

Highways 

Agency 

Highways 

Agency 

Not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified, 

not 

effective 

an not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Request that policy is re-worded to that as suggested 

On the basis that a completed evidence base has not been provided to date, it 

is considered that the DPD is unsound. Policy CP11 should be reworded as 

suggested. 

131 131/05/CP12/1 CP12 

Highways 

Agency 

Not 

justified 

Core Strategy is not supported by an IDP. Owing to lack of evidence base the 

HA consider the Core Strategy unsound. 

131 131/06/DM11/2 DM11 

Highways 

Agency 

Not 

effective 

Section 6.71 should refer to Highways Agency acting as the Highway Authority 

for the Strategic Road Network 

131 131/07/SA/2 SA 

Highways 

Agency 

Not 

effective 

SA should include indicators for proportion of trips by non-car modes, 

proportion of new development meting travel plan objectives and level of 

growth of traffic on key routes within Borough. 

132 132/01/CP4/2 CP4 Guthrie 

Mr & 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

effcetive 

Traffic impacts should be addressed. Level of housing density proposed is not 

a rural village and there are concerns over local schooling, GP surgeries and 

Frimley Park Hospital. 

189

133 133/01/Vision/S Vision Eton College Support 

Support the vision, particularly tht part which seeks to dliver housing that 

meets the needs and aspirtions of all sectors of the local community 

133 

133 

133/02/objectiv 

es/S 

133/03/CP1/1& 

2 

Objecti 

ves 

Eton College Support Support objectives 2 & 3 

CP1 Eton College 

Not 

justified 

not 

effective 

Does not provide a sound basis on which to meet local housng needs. Policy 

should be amended to alow for a review of the Green Belt. 

133 

133/04/CP3/1& 

2 


Not 

justified & 

not 

effective 

Housing figure should be increased to at least the South East Plan figures and 

wording should be amended to recognise contribution of small sites to meet 

this level of provision. Concerns regarding availability of PRB site and whether 

level of housing is sufficient to meet provision of up to 7,500 jobs. 

133 

133/05/CP14/1 

&2 


Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Reliance on availability of SANGS and ability to ensure adequate SANGS are 

available prior to developmet is unsound. Policy should be flexible to allow 

developments within 400m of SPA if it meets requirements of Habitats 

Directive 

134 

134/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

West End 

Action Group 

Support 


Green Belt 

190

134 134/02/CP3/1 CP3 

West End 

Action Group 

Mr H 

Not 

justified 



135 

135 

135 

136 

136 

135/01/CP12/2 

&3 

135/02/DM12/2 

&3 

135/03/DM14/2 

&3 

136/01/CP12/2 

&3 

136/02/DM12/2 

&3 

CP12 CAMRA 

DM12 CAMRA 

DM14 CAMRA 

CP12 Cowper Mr P 

DM12 Cowper Mr P 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

Policy should include recognition of public houses as community facilities 

Policy should include protection of public houses as community facilities 

Policy should include protection of public houses as community facilities and 

policy wording should be included as suggested. 

Policy should include recognition of public houses as community facilities 

Policy should include protection of public houses as community facilities 

191

national 

policy 

136 

136/03/DM14/2 

&3 

DM14 Cowper Mr P 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Policy should include protection of public houses as community facilities and 

policy wording should be included as suggested. 

137 

137/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Musker Mr J 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

1,200 homes is too many for a rural village and supermarket of 6,000sqm is 

too large. Local infrastructure including schooling, GPs and traffic will be 

stretched. 

138 

138/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

Fuller 

Cllr 

Mr D 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Development has not had reagrd to infrastructure and thousands of additional 

cars will use already overcrowded highways. 

139 

139/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Polhill Mr A 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Consideration must be given to major improvements to all local roads and 

establish the requirements with regard to schools, doctors surgeries and 

hospital beds 

140 140/01/CP1/S CP1 Consterdine Mr G Support Support approach to West End 

140 

140/02/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Consterdine Mr G Support Support removal of reserve housing sites and inclusion within Green Belt 

140 140/03/CP3/S CP3 Consterdine Mr G Support Support principles behind the strategy 

192

140 140/04/CP5/S CP5 Consterdine Mr G Support Support emphasis on provision of affordable housing 

140 140/05/CP11/S CP11 Consterdine Mr G Support Support desire to improve public transport. 

140 140/06/CP13/S CP13 Consterdine Mr G Support Support policy of preserving and developing network of open spaces. 

140 140/07/DM15/S DM15 Consterdine Mr G Support Support protection and provision of green spaces and recreational facilities. 

140 140/08/DM16/S DM16 Consterdine Mr G Support Support protection and provision of green spaces and recreational facilities. 

141 

142 

143 

141/01/CP4/1& 

2 

142/01/CP4/1& 

2&3 

143/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Hopkins Mr D 

CP4 

CP4 

Holland 

Patrick 

Mrs 

K 

Mr & 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified, 

not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Development must fit in with surroundings and infrastructure must be up to 

standard. 1,200 dwellings is too many. 

Dwelling numbers should be reduced back to 900-950 and no building on 

greenfield land. Future road access should be planned as well as commuter 

transport and how the heathland will be protected 

Object to number of dwellings proposed 

144 

144/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Bale Mr A 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Any future development must take the form of a rural vilage and improvements 

must be made to local roads before any re-development 

193

145 145/01/CP6/3 CP6 

McCarthy & 

Stone 

Retirement 

Lifestyles Ltd 

Not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Policy should be amended to reference provision of older persons 

accommodation being positively supported with reference to allocating future 

sites specifically for specialised forms of older persons accommodation 

145 145/02/CP5/3 CP5 

146 

146 

146 

146/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/1&2&3 

146/02/CP1/1& 

2&3 

146/03/CP3/1& 

2&3 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

CP1 

CP3 

McCarthy & 

Stone 

Retirement 

Lifestyles Ltd 

Taylor Wimpey 

UK Ltd 

Taylor Wimpey 

UK Ltd 

Taylor Wimpey 

UK Ltd 

Not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified, 

not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified, 

not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified, 

not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

Referenc to extra care schemes should be deleted from policy 

Full Green Belt review should be undertaken prior to any proposals to a 

revised Gren Belt. Housing reserves sites should be retained and not 

redefined as Green Belt. 

Statements in CP1 and in appendix 2 (deleted reserve sites) are contradictory 

and appendix does not accord with national policy 

There needs to be a clear analysis of housing need and opportunities to meet 

this need which should include a full method statement for the provision of 

SANGS 

194

policy 

147 

147/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

Collins 

Mr & 

Mrs 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Major & significant improvements need to be made to local roads. The wording 

in para (x) of Policy CP4 is too weak. 

148 148/01/CP4/2 CP4 Nolan 

Ms 

D 

Not 

effective 

Reference to 'improvements to the surrounding highway network' in para (x) of 

Policy CP4 is too vague and completely inadequate. Number of homes needs 

to be significantly reduced. 

149 

149/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

Janson 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

No solution to prevent worsening traffic congestion and safety of travellers. 

Affordable housing proportion is too high. 

150 

150/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Boast Mr D 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not possible to sustain 1,200 dwellings without major and significant 

improvements to local roads. 1,200 new homes at density of 33dph is too high. 

151 151/01/CP4/S CP4 

Jehovah's 

Witnesses 

Support 

Considered sound and legally compliant as policy recognises need for 

community infrastructure including a place of worship 

151 151/02/CP12/S CP12 

Jehovah's 

Witnesses 

Support 

Definition of public services is consideredto be sound and leagally compliant 

as it includes places or worship and is therefore consitent with national policy 

195

151 151/03/DM14/S DM14 

Jehovah's 

Witnesses 

Support 

Policy recognises importance of community and cultural facilities and 

addreses need for new or enhanced facilities where developmet occurs 

152 

152/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Toor Mr D 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Object to development of site because roads already congested and doctors 

are running at full capacity 

153 

153/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Molloy Mr T 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

object to developmet of site because traffic increases on local roads and site 

cannot sustain 1,200 new homes 

154 

154/01/CP8/1& 

2 

CP8 Kier Property 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Range of alternative uses should be expanded in para 5.54 to include hotels 

and gyms. Policy wording should be amended to that suggested. 

155 155/01/CP7/3 CP7 

156 

156/01/CP4/1& 

2 

Showmen's 

Guild of GB 

CP4 Smith Mr B 

Not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Section on Travelling Showmen ignores Planning Guidance Circular 04/2007 

and that Local Authorities should take into account GTAAs 

Development will be detrimental to local amenity and ignores difficulties 

caused by traffic congestion 

157 

157/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Byrne Mr J 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Size of development too large because infrasructure existing or planned will 

not make the settlement sustainable. Section (xiii) of polic needs much more 

detail to be effective. 

196

158 


n/1&2&3 

Omissi 

on 

Thames Water 

Not 

justified, 

not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Given the loss of the RSS there is no policy to address water quality below the 

nationa level. Policy on water quality should be added in lne with suggested 

text 

158 158/02/CP4/S CP4 Thames Water Support Support the development as it is far easier to plan for larger developments. 

158 158/03/CP12/2 CP12 Thames Water 

Not 

effective 

Support the aims of CP12, but consider that policy is not effective. Suggested 

text should be added to policy regarding wastewater infrastructure 

158 158/04/DM10/2 DM10 Thames Water 

Not 

effective 

Support content of DM10, but wording could be improved to increase 

effectiveness as set out in suggested text. 

159 

159/01/Intoducti 

on/1 

Introdu 

ction 

Houghton 

Mr G 

Not 

justified 

Para 1.3 secs (v), (viii) & para 1.8 are unjustified as the RSS has been 

revoked 

159 159/02/CP3/1 CP3 Houghton Mr G 


Not 

justified 

Not 

justified 

Scale of housing proposed would lead to an oversupply of housing. 

Object to number and density of dwellings. 6,000sqm of retail space is too 

high and traffic situation will worsen. 


Not 

effective 

No indication as to the ability of existing sites to support additional 19 pitches. 

160 160/01/CP8/2 CP8 

Shorstan 

Company Ltd 

Not 

effective 

Should be specific criteria to allow the change of use employment land to 

other uses. 

197

160 160/02/CP14/2 CP14 

Shorstan 

Company Ltd 

Not 

effective 

Text in para's 5.118-119 should make clear that SANGS are being sought 

throughout the Borough 

160 160/03/DM13/2 DM13 

Shorstan 

Company Ltd 

Not 

effective 

Wording of criterion (ii) should be amended to text as suggested. Should also 

be specific criteria to allow redevelopment or changeof use of employment 

land to other uses. 

161 

161/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Cox Mr D 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Concerns regarding los of village 'feel', increases in traffic and size of new 

supermarket. 

162 162/01/CP6/2 CP6 

Churchill 

Retirement 

Living 

Not 

effective 

Recommend identification of specific strategic objective and delivery issue for 

meeting the needs of older generation. An additional policy would be 

appropriate for this. 

163 163/01/CP4/2 CP4 Heath 

Ms 

M 

Not 

effective 

Planned development should not include provision of dual carriageway ay 

Maultway and other routes out of the Deepcut should be planned 

164 164/01/CP14/2 CP14 Segalini 

Not 

effective 

Text in para's 5.118-119 should make clear that SANGS are being sought 

throughout the Borough 

165 165/01/SWOT/2 SWOT 

Surrey County 

Council 

Not 

effective 

Text on page 18 appears to support increase in car usage 

165 

165/02/DistrictP 

rofile/2 

District 

Profile 

Surrey County 

Council 

Not 

effective 

Contradiction between para 2.24 and 5.49. Para 2.24 should be amended to 

text as suggested. 

198

165 165/03/SWOT/2 SWOT 

Surrey County 

Council 

Not 

effective 

SWOT analysis on p18 should be amended with de;etions and additions as 

suggested. 

165 


tion/2 

Introdu 

ction 

Surrey County 

Council 

Not 

effective 

Addition of para to introduction explaining relationship between DPD and SCC 

responsibilities for minerals and waste planning is required. Introduction under 

'community facilities' sub section should be extended to reflect SWP para C6 

and SWP Policy WD1 as well as JMWMS intention to close and relocate Swift 

Land recycling centre 

165 165/05/CP2/2 CP2 

Surrey County 

Council 

Not 

effective 

Policy should be amended to promote wider benefits of sustainable design, 

construction and demolition techniques. This should also be reflected in 

supporting text to reflect intentions of the SWP. 

165 165/06/CP4/2 CP4 

Surrey County 

Council 

Not 

effective 

SCC are content with development at Deepcut provided that transport 

sustainability and traffic impact can be suitably mitigated. Support the 

aspiration of library services in Deepcut. However, policy and supporting text 

should be revised to promote extraction and use of mineral deposits prior to 

development. 

199

165 165/07/CP10/2 CP10 

Surrey County 

Council 

Not 

effective 

SCC remain largely supportive of Camberley Town Centre regeneration but 

would like to see the aspiration for a larger Camberley Library reflected in the 

Policy. 

165 165/08/CP11/2 CP11 

Surrey County 

Council 

Not 

effective 

Support the approach to CP11 but final para should indicate that movements 

can also be mitigated by other measures. Para 5.80 should clarify whether 

stage 1 assessment took account of Deepcut or Camberley Town Centre 

regeneration. 

165 165/09/CP12/2 CP12 

Surrey County 

Council 

Not 

effective 

Policy refers to 'in kind' contributions which will not be easily understood and 

requires clarification with examples. 

165 165/10/CP13/2 CP13 

Surrey County 

Council 

Not 

effective 

Reference should b made to the role of the Green Arc SW in delivering GI. 

166 

166/01/CP1/1& 

2&3 

CP1 

The Camberley 

Society 

Policy is ineffective as it fails to address intrusions into the countyside. Policy 

should be amended as suggested. 

166 

166/02/CP3/2& 

3 

CP3 

The Camberley 

Society 

Mr C 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Policy should be amended such that residential gardens are included within 

definition of PDL. 

166 166/03/CP10/2 CP10 

The Camberley 

Society 

Mr C 

Not 

effective 

Para 5.74 should be amended to reflect the London Road Frontage as a top 

riority in the short-medium term. 

200

166 166/04/CP12/2 CP12 

166 

166 

166/05/DM 

Policies/1&2&3 

166/06/LPUE2- 

5/1&2 

DM 

policies 

LPUE2 

-5 

The Camberley 

Society 

The Camberley 

Society 

The Camberley 

Society 

Mr C 

Mr C 

Mr C 

Not 

effective 

Not 

justified, 

not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

IDP has not been published or subject to public consultation. 

Para 6.2 needs amendeding to refelct revocation of RSS. 

Character Area SPD does not exist yet and it would be premature to delete 

policies until adoption of SPD. 

166 166/07/CP3/1 CP3 

The Camberley 

Society 

Mr D 

Not 

justified 

Significant difference in the 'highest' totals set out in the table to the target of 

2502. 

166 166/08/CP14/1 CP14 

The Camberley 

Society 

Mr D 

Not 

justified 

Funding for acquisition of SANGS site is not stated but considered this should 

be funded by central government. Final sentence of para 5.118 and additional 

bullet to 5.120 should be amended/added as suggested. 

167 167/01/CP2/2 CP2 RSPB 

Not 

effective 

RSPB recommends the addition of tragets for energy and water efficiency 

167 

167/02/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 RSPB 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Additional work is required to demonstrate that adequate avoidance/mitigation 

measures can be secured to protect the European sites. 

201

167 167/03/CP14/2 CP14 RSPB 

Not 

effective 

New policy should be introduced to clearly set out the approach to protecting 

the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. Policy text should be as suggested. 

168 168/01/DM7/1 DM7 

Sainsbury's 

Supermarkets 

Ltd 

Not 

justified 

Not considered appropriate for small or medium scale retail extensions to 

expect whole building energy performance improvements. 

169 

169 

169/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/1&2&3 

169/02/CP3/1& 

2&3 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

CP3 

Sentinel 

Housing 

Association 

Sentinel 

Housing 

Association 

Not 

justified, 

not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified, 

not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Housing need and demand above the 2,502 target is clearly expressed in the 

SHMA and Windlesham Reserve site will be required. 

Number of houses proposed does not take into acount the housing need and 

demand expressed in the SHMA & SHLAA 

170 

170/01/SWOT/ 

S 

SWOT Aitch Group Support 

Support the key priority of maximising urban, brownfield land in sustainable 

locations as indicated in the opportunities section of the SWOT 

170 170/02/CP5/2 CP5 Aitch Group 

Not 

effective 

Considered that all affordable housing should be delivered in the context of 

viability and the policy should consider innovative approaches to its delivery. 

202

171 171/01/CP6/2 CP6 

First Wessex 

Housing Group 

Ltd 

Not 

effective 

Object to onus on developer to justify why they cannot reach affordable 

dweling size and type target. Policy should be ameded as suggested. 

171 171/02/CP5/2 CP5 

First Wessex 

Housing Group 

Ltd 

Not 

effective 

Generally supportive of targets, but a review period should be built into the 

policy or the words 'short term' defined. 

172 


n/3 

Omissi 

on 

Natural 

England 

Not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Additional policy specifically covering the Thames Basin Heaths SPA is 

required 

172 

172/02/Challen 

ges/S 

The 

Challen 

ges 

Natural 

England 

Support 

Document recognises importance of ensuring delivery of development and 

infrastructure does not harm the environment. 

172 

172/03/Objectiv 

es/S 

Objecti 

ves 

172 172/04/CP1/2 CP1 

172 172/05/CP3/3 CP3 

172 172/06/CP4/3 CP4 

Natural 

England 

Natural 

England 

Natural 

England 

Natural 

England 

Support Commend objectives 5,6, 8, 10 & 11 

Not 

effective 

Not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Policy fails to acknowledge the biodiversity value of PDL. 

Target for Deepcut should be 'up to' 1,200 dwellings. 

Support inclusion of measures (xi), (xii) and (xiv), but housing figure should be 

amended to read 'up to' 1,200 dwellings. 

172 172/07/CP11/S CP11 

Natural 

England 

Support 

Support policy commitment to improve public transport, walking and cycling 

routes. 

203

172 172/08/CP13/2 CP13 

Natural 

England 

Not 

effective 

GI multi-funtionality should be highlighted in policy or supporting text. 

Concerned there does not appear to be a document setting out GI stratgey for 

whole Borough. 

172 172/09/CP14/2 CP14 

Natural 

England 

Not 

effective 

Policy is too narrowly focussed on protection of designated sites. 

172 172/10/SA/2 SA 

Natural 

England 

Not 

effective 

Some SA objectives and indicators are unclear and some data is out of date. 

Little detail provided as to how biodiversity within the Borough may change in 

absence of the plan and additional monitoring options suggested previously 

have not been incorporated. 

172 172/11/HRA/2 HRA 

Natural 

England 

Not 

effective 

Largely agree with HRA, but additional policy specifically for TBH isrequired to 

reach conclusion in para 14.1.6. 

173 


n/2 

Omissi 

on 

Albemarle 

Fairoaks Airport 

Ltd 

Not 

effective 

To reflect the importance of Fairoaks Airport there should be a stratgeic policy 

to identify the role the airport plays within the Surrey Heath economy. 

174 


es/S 

Objecti 

ves 

Environment 

Agency 

Support Stongly support objectives 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. 

174 174/02/CP2/S CP2 

Environment 

Agency 

Support 

Pleased that policy recognises the need for water efficiency and encourages 

SUDS 

204

174 174/03/CP4/3 CP4 

Environment 

Agency 

Not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Support criteria (xii), (xiii), (xv), , but policy should consider manageing the 

residua flood risk of breach from the Basingstoke Canal. 

174 174/04/CP12/2 CP12 

174 174/05/CP13/S CP13 

Environment 

Agency 

Environment 

Agency 

Not 

effective 

Support 

Definition of 'flood defence' needs adding to box in para 5.95 

Support policyon Green Infrastructure 

174 174/06/CP14/S CP14 

Environment 

Agency 

Support 

Support policy and welcome inclusion of Biodiversity Opportunity Areas, 

including the Blackwater River 

174 174/07/DM9/S DM9 

174 174/08/DM10/3 DM10 

174 174/09/SA/2&3 SA 

175 

176 

175/01/CP4/1& 

2 

176/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

CP4 

Environment 

Agency 

Environment 

Agency 

Environment 

Agency 

Norman 

Gardiner 

Mr & 

Mrs 

Mr & 

Mrs 

Support 

Not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Strongly support the inclusion of targets on water efficiency. 

Support aproach to SUDS and FRAs but to make the policy consistent with 

PPS25 change the word 'level' to 'volume' 

Amendments required to para 14.4.2, 15.1.3, 15.1.4, 15.2.3, 19.3.7, Matrix for 

Spatial Strategy on p 158, objective 11 and Table 2.1 

No requirement for 6,000sqm supermarket and local roads already congested. 

Object to dwelling numbers, size of supermarket, traffic and infrastructure 

impacts. 

205

177 

177/01/Key 

Diagram/2 

Key 

Diagra 

m 

Jones 

Mrs 

Y 

Not 

effective 

Reserve sites should be covered by green hash to show within the Green Belt 

177 177/02/DM10/2 DM10 Jones 

Mrs 

Y 

Not 

effective 

Wording of DM10 not tight enough. Para 66 should include text as suggested. 

178 

178/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

Parsons 

Mr & 

Mrs 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Dwelling numbers should be reduced to 'potential' for 900 and policy should 

make reference to requirements for comprehensive improvemets to highway 

infrastructure. 

179 

179 

179/01/CP3/1& 

3 

179/02/CP4/1& 

2&3 

CP3 

CP4 

Defence 

Estates 

Defence 

Estates 

Not 

justified 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified, 

not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

CP3 should be amended to reflect promotong the most effective use of PDL at 

the PRB site and in settlement areas and increase PRB allocation to 1,400 

homes. 

Policy CP4 and para 5.25 should be amended to text as suggested. 

179 

179/03/CP6/1& 

2 

CP6 

Defence 

Estates 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

CP6 should be amended in respect of market housing to improve deliverability 

of the project. Policy should be amended to text as suggested. 

206

179 

180 

179/04/CP12/1 

&2&3 


n/1&2 

CP12 

Omissi 

on 

Defence 

Estates 

Corbin 

Ms 

D 

Not 

justified, 

not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

IDP should have formal status as an SPD. Policy should be amended to text 

as suggested. 

Land at Fenns Lane, West End should be included within consideration of 

potential development sites. 

181 

182 

183 

184 

181/01/CP4/1& 

2 

182/01/CP4/1& 

2 

183/01/CP4/1& 

2 

184/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

CP4 

Byrne 

Winship 

Mr & 

Mrs 

G 

Mr & 

Mrs 

S 

CP4 Loughlin Mr P 

CP4 

O'Connell 

Ms 

A 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Infrastructure is not currentlt adequate to support 1,200 homes. 


impacts. 


impacts. 

Infrastructure is not currently adequate to support 1,200 homes. 

185 

185/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Terry Mr S 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

1,200 homes are too many and would be out of character with the surrounds. 

Supermarkey development is not required. 

186 

186/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

Stafford 

Mr & 

Mrs 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 


impacts. 

207

187 

188 

189 

190 

191 

192 

193 

194 

195 

187/01/CP4/1& 

2 

188/01/CP4/1& 

2 

189/01/CP4/1& 

2 

190/01/CP4/1& 

2 

191/01/CP4/1& 

2 

192/01/CP4/1& 

2 

193/01/CP4/1& 

2 

194/01/CP4/1& 

2 

195/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Bambridge Mr P 

CP4 

Deas 

Mrs 

S 

CP4 Hicks Mr P 

CP4 Penny Mr D 

CP4 

CP4 

CP4 

CP4 

CP4 

Levack 

Hennessy 

Cockram 

Heale 

Ormonroyd 

Mrs 

J 

Mrs 

L 

Ms 

R 

Mrs 

M 

Mr & 

Mrs 

P 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 

Object to dwelling numbers, traffic and infrastructure impacts. 


impacts. 

208

196 

197 

196/01/CP4/1& 

2 

197/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Samuel Mr I 

CP4 

Gay 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 


impacts. 


impacts. 

198 

198/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

Mitchell 

Mr & 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

1200 homes at 33 dph is not a rural village, and has increased from 900 units 

originally discussed, the proposed supermarket is too large, significant 

highway improvements would be required on already congested local roads, 

the site is isolated and unsustainable, affordable housing should be 

distributed throughout the development. Amend policy as suggested. 

199 

199/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

Mansfield 

Dr J 

M 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 


impacts. 

200 

201 

202 

200/01/CP4/1& 

2 

201/01/CP4/1& 

2 

202/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Barnard Mr A 

CP4 

Rossiter 

Ms 

S 

CP4 Guy Mr G 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Object to dwelling numbers, traffic and infrastructure impacts. Difficult to 

mitigate impacts to European Sites. 


impacts. 


impacts. 

209

203 

204 

205 

206 

207 

208 

209 

210 

211 

203/01/CP4/1& 

2 

204/01/CP4/1& 

2 

205/01/CP4/1& 

2 

206/01/CP4/1& 

2 

207/01/CP4/1& 

2 

208/01/CP4/1& 

2 

209/01/CP4/1& 

2 

210/01/CP4/1& 

2 

211/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

CP4 

White 

Drakeley 

Mr & 

Mrs 

K 

Mr & 

Mrs 

M 

CP4 Davies Mr T 

CP4 Phillips Mr L 

CP4 

CP4 

Davies 

Basham 

Mrs 

S 

Mr & 

Mrs 

A 

CP4 Hicks Ms F 

CP4 

CP4 

Daniel 

Boothroyd 

Mr & 

Mrs 

A 

Miss 

E 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 


impacts. 

Object to dwelling numbers, traffic and infrastructure impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 

210

212 

213 

214 

215 

216 

217 

218 

212/01/CP4/1& 

2 

213/01/CP4/1& 

2 

214/01/CP4/1& 

2 

215/01/CP4/1& 

2 

216/01/CP4/1& 

2 

217/01/CP4/1& 

2 

218/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Else Mr C 

CP4 

Watkins 

Mr & 

Mrs 

J 

CP4 Peacock Ms L 

CP4 

CP4 

Cadby 

Hicks 

Mr & 

Mrs 

N 

Mr 

M 

CP4 Walsh Mr P 

CP4 

Cottell 

Mrs 

D 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not possible to sustain 1,200 dwellings without major and significant 

improvements to local roads. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 

219 

219/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Greenway Mr S 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 


impacts. 

220 

220/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

Greenway 

Mrs 

M 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 


impacts. 

211

221 

222 

223 

224 

225 

226 

227 

221/01/CP4/1& 

2 

222/01/CP4/1& 

2 

223/01/CP4/1& 

2 

224/01/CP4/1& 

2 

225/01/CP4/1& 

2 

226/01/CP4/1& 

2 

227/01/CP4/1& 

2 

228 228/01/Profile/1 

CP4 Deverell Mr P 

CP4 

CP4 

Whiteley 

Warner 

Majo 

r 

JRL 

Mr T 

& Mr 

M 

CP4 Horton Ms F 

CP4 Hyde Mr H 

CP4 Prince Mr R 

CP4 

District 

Profile 

Para 

2.24 

Flick 

Chobham 

Rugby Club in 

asociation with 

PM Asset 

Management 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Not 

justified 

Object to level of traffic generated by the development. Rail line should be 

reintroduced and playing fields retained. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 


impacts. 

Para 2.24 omits reference to A319, A3046 & A325. Para should be amended 

as suggested. 

212

228 

228 

228/02/key 

diagram/1 

228/03/CP1/1& 

2&3 

Key 

Diagra 

m 

CP1 

228 228/04/CP3/3 CP3 

228 

228 

228/05/CP5/1& 

3 

228/06/CP6/1& 

3 

CP5 

CP6 

Chobham 

Rugby Club in 


PM Asset 


Chobham 

Rugby Club in 


PM Asset 


Chobham 

Rugby Club in 


PM Asset 


Chobham 

Rugby Club in 


PM Asset 


Chobham 

Rugby Club in 


PM Asset 


Not 

justified 

Not 

justified, 

not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Key diagram does not include A319, A3046 and A325. Amendment required 

to include missing roads. 

Policy overly restricts the amount andtype of development that is acceptable in 

Chobham. Policy should be amended as set out in suggested text. 

Borough Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply. Targets should 

be amended to take accout of redevelopment of Chobham Rugby Club. 

Reference to retirement homes and extra care schemes should be deleted 

from the policy and para 5.31 

Needs of the elderly are not recognised in Policy CP6. Policy should be 

amended with text as suggested. 

213

228 

228 

228 

228 

228 

228/07/CP12/2 

&3 

228/08/CP13/2 

&3 

228/09/DM2/1& 

2&3 

228/10/DM15/2 

&3 


n/1&2 

CP12 

CP13 

DM2 

DM15 

Omissi 

on 

Chobham 

Rugby Club in 


PM Asset 


Chobham 

Rugby Club in 


PM Asset 


Chobham 

Rugby Club in 


PM Asset 


Chobham 

Rugby Club in 


PM Asset 


Chobham 

Rugby Club in 


PM Asset 


Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified, 

not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Contributions sought must meet the tests set out in Circular 05/05. Policy 

should be amended with text as suggested. 

Policy fails to be sufficiently flexible to allow sport or other recreation facilities 

to relocate. Policy should be amended with text as suggested. 

Policy makes no mention of Chobham Rugby Club and as such is not flexible 

enough to deal with changing circumstances of the club. Policy and 

paragraphs 6.19 and 6.20 should be amended with text as suggested. 

Policy is not sufficiently flexible to alow existing sports or recreation to 

relocate. Policy and para 6.96 should be amended with text as suggested. 

Chobham Rugby Club should be allocated within the Core Strategy. 

214

229 229/01/SWOT/2 SWOT 

English 

Heritage 

Not 

effective 

SWOT analysis does not mention threats to historic environment 

229 


es/2 

Objecti 

ves 

English 

Heritage 

Not 

effective 

Objective 7 not clear in relation to historic environment and national guidance 

229 

229/03/CP2/2& 

3 

CP2 

English 

Heritage 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

There is a need to secure conservation andenhancement of the historic 

environment in line with government guidance. Policy should be amended with 

text as suggested. 

229 229/04/CP4/2 CP4 

English 

Heritage 

Not 

effective 

Only heritage feature recognised in the Basingstoke Canal. Grade II listed 

garrison church of St Barbara's also warrants mention in the policy. 

229 229/05/CP10/2 CP10 

English 

Heritage 

Not 

effective 

Policy shouldgive reference to locally significant heritage features and their 

protection. 

229 

229/06/DM17/2 

&3 

DM17 

English 

Heritage 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Policy falls short of PPS5 guidance. Welcome review of local list but question 

whether there is a also a need to ensure historic landscape/townscape 

characterisation is in place to assist in monitoring. 

229 229/07/SA/2 SA 

English 

Heritage 

Not 

effective 

Referenec at para 20.1.82 to Buildings at Risk register should more 

appropriately refer to Heritage at Risk register. 

215

230 230/01/DM10/2 DM10 Kingston 

Miss 

B 

Not 

effective 

Wording in Policy DM10 is too vague and should identify 'run-off' as one of the 

other risk factors. Para 6.6 should be amended with text as suggested. 

230 

230/02/Key 

Diagram/2 

Key 

Diagra 

m 

Kingston 

Miss 

B 

Not 

effective 

Reserve sites should be covered by green hash to show within the Green Belt 

231 

231/01/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/1 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Fuller 

Mr D 

Not 

justified 

Reserve sites should be retained, especialy as Princess Royal Barracks may 

not come forward 

232 

232/01/Content 

s/2 

Conten 

ts 

Friends of the 

Museum 

Not 

effective 

Recognition of the Surrey Heath Museum should be contained within the 

contents and not included within community or cultural facilities. 

232 232/02/DM14/2 DM14 

Friends of the 

Museum 

Not 

effective 

No mention of museum or libraries in para 6.91. Par should be amended to 

include museums. 

233 233/01/CP11/2 CP11 Fish Mr D 

Not 

effective 

Public transport services within the Borough have deterioated and the current 

DPD does not contain any real policies on how to improve this. The Council 

should be making representations to transport providers on these issues. 

233 

233/02/DM14/2 

&3 

DM14 Fish Mr D 

Not 

effective 

and not 

consistent 

with 

national 

policy 

Policy focuses too much on future development and not protection of existing 

failities. There has been a significant loss of pubs and there should be a firm 

commitment to resist further losses. 

216

234 


tion/2 

Introdu 

ction 

CPRE Surrey 

Heath District 

Not 

effective 

No reference made in the Core Strategy to the impact from the DERA site if 

developed 

234 234/02/CP4/2 CP4 

CPRE Surrey 


Not 

effective 

Believe that figure of 1,200 dwellings is too low to ensure viability and the 

deliver of a self sustaining settlement 

234 234/03/CP7/2 CP7 

CPRE Surrey 


Not 

effective 

No justification for the provision of any caravan pitches for self styled Show 

people and clear statement not make any land available in the Borough is 

required. 

234 234/04/CP11/2 CP11 

CPRE Surrey 


Not 

effective 

Impact of the DERA site has not been sufficiently addressed. This should be 

taken into account in CP11. 

235 235/01/Vision/S Vision 

Windlesham 


Support 

Support objectives that Bagshot will remain as a district centre and Lightwater 

and Windlesham as local centres. 

235 235/02/CP3/S CP3 

Windlesham 


Support 

Support the concentration of development at the Princess Royal Barracks and 

consider level of housing for Bagshot, Lightwater and Windlesham is 

appropriate. 

235 235/03/CP4/2 CP4 

Windlesham 


Not 

effective 

Concerned that development at the Princess Royal Barracks will not be 

matched by effective improvements to road infrastructure. 

235 

235/04/Appendi 

x 2/1&2 

Append 

ix 2 

Map 2A 

Windlesham 


Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Delineation of western area (p76) should be extended not deleted. 

217

236 236/01/CP3/1 CP3 Wells 

Mrs 

P 

Not 

justified 



236 

236/02/Local 

Plan Policy 

H8/S 

Local 

Plan 

Policy 

H8 

Wells 

Mrs 

P 

Support 

Supports deletion of Housing Reserve Site at West End and inclusion within 

Green Belt 

237 237/01/CP7/1 CP7 

Traveller Law 

Reform Project 

Not 

justified 

Concerns at indicated level of pitches in CP7. The target should be at least 28 

pitches to 2016. 

237 237/02/DM6/1 DM6 

Traveller Law 

Reform Project 

Not 

justified 

Gypsy and Traveller pitches in the Green Belt should be dealt with in the same 

positive way as DM5 supports rural exceptions. Policy should be amended 

with text as suggested. 

238 

238/01/DM2/1& 

2 

DM2 

Garton 

Mrs 

C 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Policy should restrict building of houses in the Green Belt. Para 6.18 should be 

amended with text as suggested. 

239 

239/01/DM2/1& 

2 

DM2 Dakin Mr J 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Development should take place on brownfield land only and not within the 

Green Belt. 

240 

240/01/DM2/1& 

2 

DM2 

Dakin 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Object to any development on Green Belt land as these contain many rare 

plants and wildlife which should be protected at all costs by extending the 

SPA. 

218

241 241/01/CP4/1 CP4 

Sharrad & 

Butler 

Mr & 

Ms 

Not 

justified 

Infrastructure of Deepcut and surrounding area is not capable of supporting 

additional 1,200 homes 

242 

242/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

Donovan 

Mrs 

J 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 





243 243/01/CP4/ CP4 Taylor Mr K 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 



congested local roads, the site is isolated and unsustainable, local health 

services are already oversubscribed. 

244 

244/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

Cox 

Mr 

M 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 



congested local roads. 

245 

245/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Wooldridge Mr A 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Primary care and policing are insufficient to support 1200 homes, and roads 

are too congested. 

246 

246/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Griffiths Mr T 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 

Roads cannot support additional traffic. Development may affect house 

prices. 

219

247 

247/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 Gibbons Mr S 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 


local roads and affordable housing should be distributed throughout the 

development. 

248 

248/01/CP4/1& 

2 

CP4 

Smith 

Mrs 

C 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 


local roads, development would be detrimental to local amenity and may 

adversely impact on local wildlife habitats. 

249 

249/01/0CP4/1 

&2 

CP4 Zhang Yu 

Not 

justified 

and not 

effective 




housing should be distributed throughout the development 

250 


n/2 

Omissi 

on 

Gill 

Mr P 

Not 

Effective 

Further details regarding details of proposed development at DERA site 

should be included in Core Strategy 

220

Appendix F - Core Strategy & Development Management Policies ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?