South Godstone Garden Village Introduction to the scheme Proposed - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

South Godstone Garden Village

Introduction to the scheme

• Proposed expansion
• f

South Godstone to create a new Garden Village

• Up to 5,000 new

homes delivered

• ver 15-20 years
• Early delivery of

homes to contribute to TDC housing trajectory

• Central to District

and served by rail

• Phased delivery of supporting

infrastructure, shops, services, schools, employment, sports pitches and open space

The core site

Constraints and opportunities

Emerging vision and masterplan

Key planning benefits

• 1. Rebalancing away

from more sensitive north of District which has seen majority

• f

past growth;

• 2. Low

transport infrastructure hurdle – key opportunity to make best use

• f

railway station and safeguard services/improve frequency;

• 3. Secondary school in central location

to serve south of District generally;

• 4. Targeting

investment and enhancing sustainability

• f

existing community and village;

• 5. Few constraints and lower landscape

sensitivity

• 6. Location

close to Lamb’s Business park with proposals to integrate employment growth into Garden Village

• 7. Delivers timely infrastructure and early housing

Information shared to date

• HELAA Submission;

February 2016 (SGOD 009-012 & 014)

• Vision

Document; August 2016

• Presentation to Officers;

November 2016

• Local Plan Sites

Consultation Submission; December 2016

• Updated vision

document

• Feasibility report
• Transport

report

• Site availability information;

February 2017

• nwards
• HELAA Updates;

May 2017

• Pro-forma

information

• Heritage report
• Govia Thameslink

Railway information

Heritage and ecology

• Heritage De

sk-based Assessment:

• Sensitive masterplanning

can ensure no harm to significance and setting of Lagham Manor designations

• Seek to

retain Park Pale as feature of development

• Archaeological potential can

be addressed through future planning applications

• Ecology walk-over survey:
• No

‘show-stopper’ constraints identified

• Formal report

to be prepared

Our ongoing work

• Meetings

held with stakeholders:

• Met with Surrey County Council
• re. transport and highways. No significant concerns
• ver A22, possible issues for

growth generally at A22 junctions nr. East Grinstead and M25 junction, but no show-stoppers

• Met with Govia

Thameslink Railway. Lots of spare capacity on Redhill-Tonbridge line, with growth making best use of that

• Met with Education Authority. Supportive in principle to new secondary school in this

location to serve wider-south of District

• Ongoing

discussion and engagement with officers and councillors

• Further technical work ongoing:
• Road and

access options

• Environmental baseline
• Any further information

required by Council?

Site ownerships and availability

Map No. & HELAA Ref Landowner Summary Position 1. Understood landowners intend to SGOD 012 SGOD 014 release the land (even if not with BA) and have confirmed this to Council. 2. SGOD 009 Assessed already as available. Confirmed by landowner agent to Council in letter 28 February 2017. 3. SGOD 011 Confirmed available by landowner agent to Council in letter 28 February. 4. Understood landowners intend to SGOD 010 release the land (even if not with BA) and have confirmed this to Council. 5. SGOD 010 Confirmed available by landowner agent to Council in letter 28 February. 6. SGOD 010 Land option with BA agreed. BA in control of site. 7. SGOD 010 Confirmed available by landowners to Council in letter 2 March. Three small clusters of ‘landbanked’ plots being assembled, but can be planned around. 8. SGOD 010 Principle terms of option agreed. Confirmed available by landowner. 9. SGOD 010 Confirmed available by landowner to Council in letter 02 March. 10. SGOD 010 Negotiations ongoing. Understood landowner has confirmed availability

Wider land - providing flexibility

Bringing forward South Godstone

• Multiple landowners around South Godstone:
• Bonnar Allan

is in control, or is in advanced contract discussions to control, all land shown in the core p roposal which provides certainty over the delivery of c.3,500 homes and associated infrastructure

• Other land

is being promoted by independent discussion with Bonnar Allan that could add to

• r

development further this vision and which

• ffers flexibility beyond the core

scheme

• Bonnar Allan

committed to working with other landowners to bring forward holistic and comprehensive development

• Tandridge

District Council has a role to play in binding together interests:

• Plan-led approach

– allocation and policy can set parameters

• SPD/masterplan approach with involvement of all

parties could be

• ne

way of providing detail and unifying interests around a single vision

• Few large sites are in single
• wnership; some other examples

where comprehensive approach has worked…

Lichfields examples

e nd

Callerton Park

• 3,000

home urban extension to Newcastl

• Five main landowners

(Bellway, Taylor Wimpey, CEG, Northumberland Estates a Council)

• Allocated in

Plan, with collaborative masterplan and design code prepared to provide framework for applications

Welborne

• 6,000 home Garden Village

in Fareham, Hampshire

• Two main promoters (90% of site),

but eight

• ther landowners
• ‘The

Welborne Plan’ (LP Part 3) sets

• ut

all development plan policies

• Complex land ownership resolved