24/0428/OOU

Outline planning application with all matters reserved other than means of access, for mixed residential development comprising up to 154 Integrated Retirement Community units (Use Class C2) and 33 dwellings (Use Class C3), together with a GP Surgery, the creation of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace, landscaping, car parking, access, maintenance workshop, refuse storage, and communal facilities.

Objection from the Windlesham Society

The Society notes that this application is for outline planning permission to establish that such a development is possible on the site. Only the site access details are for full determination. We presume all matters relating to scale, appearance, layout, trees, biodiversity and trees will be part of the reserved submission, if outline planning is granted.

In order that there is no doubt the Society totally and absolutely objects to this application for a number of reasons discussed below and particularly as the development is wholly on Green Belt Land.

To be clear as well the Society objects strongly to the particular application for vehicular access as being dangerous and unworkable.

History of the land.

There is evidence that this land was included in a number of parcels of land totalling 100 acres in the  then the Windsor Royal Forest that the King gave to the Prioress of  Broomhall. There is mention that this gift made in 1200 included 6 or 7 acres in this development area. The Prioress made an application to the King that they be allowed to put in hedges of a moderate height such that deer could get over them. The hedgerows are now still a protected feature as stated in the report with the application. The religious order was dispersed in 1521 and the lands given to St John’s College Cambridge. It is believed the priory burnt down in 1462.

Thus it is vital that the hedgerows remain protected, and any replacement is in line with the existing. This does, of course mean with native hedgerow species.

Need for an Archaeological Survey?

In the papers submitted with the application it states that “the site borders the known route of a Roman Road.”

Surrey County Council have recommended the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, to be conducted in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved, in writing by the local Planning Authority. There is a high likelihood of bronze age remains.

It seems to the Society that this should be completed before the detailed Planning Consultation.

Green Belt including LVIA

The development is on undeveloped land within the Green Belt. The last recorded building on the site would appear to have burnt down in 1462.

Considerations around the Green Belt are dealt with the National Policy Framework 2023.

All parties to this development seem to accept the proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

It is still possible to develop providing that there are very special circumstances. In these cases the potential harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and other reasons is outweighed by other considerations.

We shall show in the next section that we do not believe there are any other considerations in this case. None at all. Not even vaguely.

The National Policy Framework sets out in chapter 13 the 5 purposes of the Green Belt. The first three seem to us to be relevant and should be an important consideration going forward.

They are.

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.

To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

The residents of Windlesham, in a situation where they are losing green land all around consider this land to be a very important green lung between the bulk of the village and the A30 and neighbouring settlements.

In LVIA-1 there are one or two matters worthy of comment. On page 26 the consultants say that the proposed planting will take 15 years to be fully effective. That is just not acceptable.

On page 19 the Report deals with Visual Receptors,11 of the 23 are considered high sensitivity and we would regard that as a conservative estimate. The status quo must be retained if not improved.

We feel this is of the utmost importance. It has to be said that the volume of objections to this proposal is an indication of the strength of feeling not only in Snows ride but across the village.

Very Special Circumstances.

The development proposed is an Integrated Retirement Community and provides housing for older people, over 75 according to the application although we will return to that later, the incorporation of affordable housing and self-build plots, the inclusion of the SANG, the creation of jobs and raising of Council Tax. We will deal with the SANG under another heading, just noting here that the Developer throughout speaks of the SANG as something that the Community are being given whereas the Community think they already have it, and these proposals take it away. The SANG is mitigation for development not a justification for it.

Local experience

I have seen somewhere in the objections; I think from the Parish Council that they calculate there are in the region of 2000 beds for older people within a 10 mile radius. I have calculated that there are 10 comparable developments very locally. These range from 4 comparable retirement villages to a range of blocks of retirement apartments with communal facilities. From personal experience I would say the new Retirement Village at Sunningdale Park (in the R.B of Windsor and Maidenhead) 15 minutes’ drive away is the most comparable. This has three large blocks of apartments and mews houses and is set in 79 acres of land.  In discussion with them I am told it takes three years from completion of each block to see all units sold by which time there are a number of routine vacancies. This is hardly indicative of a waiting list for such properties or anything that would lead to “very special circumstances”.

There are new developments in Sunningdale, Virginia Water and Bagshot either just completed or in the course of development. None of these are fully sold and the estate agents who deal in second hand properties of this nature have many units always available.

These developments are only appropriate for a specific category of resident. They are expensive (up to £960,000 at Sunningdale Park or a penthouse at Lynwood for £1.2m.) plus service charges and in many cases restrictions on resale.

This development is aimed at extra care which allows for 24-hour care but so do many of the developments above

There is every indication that the market is saturated.

It is extremely relevant that all these developments started as being for people over 70 or over 65. All have now come down to 55 because of difficulties in selling.

In this case this is very important as the ratio for car to household used in this application is around 0.6 and would be considerably higher for a 55-year-old household where 2 people may well still be working. There are many assumptions based on the age of residents but the demand for such development for so many people of that age given the competition around is unproven.

G P Surgery

The Windlesham Society would say that Lightwater Surgery is an excellent Surgery offering same day appointments to all.

I am sure many Windlesham residents close to Snows Ride would be pleased to have such a new facility, but we would submit it is not a “very special circumstance”.

There are no details given about the funding arrangements. The Doctors letter states that approval is need from the wider NHS, in a recent letter the Developer has stated that approval has been obtained. There has been no consultation with Lightwater patients and there is concern in Windlesham about the extra traffic that this would bring. It is not anywhere near the centre of the village.

Windlesham residents also use Magnolia House in Sunningdale and Kings Corner.

Frimley Health Trust have confirmed Planning permission for a large Health Centre in Sunningdale just 3-4 miles away. They have 3 years to develop that and are in the process of submitting an updated business plan.

In addition Lightwater is once again accepting new patients and although narrowing its catchment area it covers Lightwater and Windlesham. Magnolia House and Kings Corner are now taking new patients.

There would seem to be much happening in existing practices which are expanding, and it is true a few months back several were limiting new registrations but that is no longer the case. With the Planning agreement for a large Health Centre 3-4 miles away this cannot be argued to be a “very special circumstance.” The proposed surgery is also 2.5 storeys high and intrusive and will generate traffic.

The Society would note that there have been a number of planning applications including a Surgery. None of which have produced one. There were plans on the Windmill Field and in at least two Care Home plans.

AFFORDABLE  HOUSING

The application provides for 23 affordable (as defined) units within a 2.5 storey building. The homes in the proposal are not strictly affordable homes but “First Homes” which is a kind of discounted market sale housing for first time buyers. The first sale has to be at less than £250,000.

Current regulations stipulate that household income cannot be more that £80,000 and under a proposed Section 106 agreement all future resales would be at a 30% discount from market prices.

Purchase of these units would still need on current O N S data around a £50,000 deposit and a £200,000 mortgage. Affordable is as we say a tag subject to individual interpretation.

The Society submits that they are not affordable, but they do assist house purchase. This cannot be a “very special circumstance.” They may well have been appropriate in other developments agreed already in Windlesham but not here.

Self Build Units

The Society cannot find any detail about these. Presumably plots will be sold, and individual purchasers will apply for individual planning at that time. We do not think that there is any demonstrated need for such properties and the individual basis of each amongst the development is a risk. The Parish Council say the demonstrated need is overstated; we doubt if it is apparent at all.

WINDLESHAM-Planning and local plan

The Society does not consider that this application complies with the requirements for ‘sustainable housing growth’ as outlined in the Windlesham Neighbourhood Plan (WNP). The WNP is a robust framework through which sustainable housing growth can be delivered in Windlesham Village. It was adopted in June 2019 and since that date it forms part of the SHBC Local Plan and is, therefore, listed as a ‘constraint’ against this application.

Planning permission was refused for a very similar application on this site (23/0581/FFU) . The Society objected to that application in the strongest possible terms. The layout has changed in some ways but many of the reasons given for refusing the application remain.

The WNP must be considered when assessing the validity of new planning applications within Windlesham Village.

This Proposal fails to meet the Policies of the adopted WNP.

This proposal does not meet the requirements of the WNP, specifically, the Society considers that this application fails in several key areas:

Rate of new housing development in Windlesham is already ‘unsustainable’.

The Society contends that, should this proposal be agreed, it would represent unsustainable development which would negatively impact both the community and the village of Windlesham.

Since 2018, 160 new homes have been built or approved in Windlesham – this is more than 3 times the maximum of 50 new homes agreed by the WNP between 2018-2028

Policy WNP1.1 of the WNP states that planning applications for new housing development will only be supported if they are consistent with the appropriate rate of development for Windlesham.  This was estimated to translate to between 20-50 dwellings being constructed within the period of the strategy document 2018-2028.

Since the WNP was adopted the total level of growth anticipated by 2028 has already been exceeded. The Dairy and Old Post Office developments by Runnymede homes have provided an additional 19 homes in the village centre.  More recently planning permission has been granted for 141 additional properties at Heath Park Wood, Broadley Green and Twelve Oaks.

Collectively this already amounts to a total of 160 homes delivered or approved within Windlesham over the five-year period from 2018-2022

As a small village with limited infrastructure, the Society is concerned that this 10% increase in housing volume is already unsustainable and far exceeds the number supported by the residents of Windlesham who voted for the WNP. It would also represent in excess of half the entire SHBC annual housing allocation for the Borough in one small village.

Access-Traffic Road Safety

This is, of course the major part of this application, on this occasion.

In summary there are many reasons why the proposals are so unacceptable. We submit that the developer has hopelessly underestimated the number of cars and journeys which will be caused by this development. Snows ride is inadequate for the number of vehicles using it now and facilities for pedestrians non-existent. The access points are at unacceptable points. The village roads cannot take any more traffic.

Detailed Comments

On the site plan there are 5 access points to the development. Three pedestrian and two vehicular. The pedestrian access is all from different points in Snows ride. There is some logic in that as it allows access to the A30, to the roads to the Village and to Snows Ride.

There are, in our opinion no logical and safe vehicular access points.  The two suggested are one on the A30 shortly before the turn to Snows ride and the other in Snows ride near Travis Perkins. The Surrey County Council comments are not in as we write this, but it would seem the access from the A30 is very close to the existing Snows Ride.

Snows Ride is a very important minor road as it connects the A30 to School Road but also provides the only access to the Snows Ride Development. It is a very busy road and there is regular congestion at the junction with the A30.

It also forms a convenient cut through to the village. It is currently 40 mph and is difficult to cross. There is a major difficulty with very large vehicles waiting to unload at Travis Perkins and blocking the road and making driving along it very hazardous. The problem with Travis Perkins is minimised in the application but for many residents it is a recurring and unnecessary nightmare and a large hazard. The road cannot take any more traffic. There are no pedestrian walkways and pushing a pram or a wheelchair down Snows Ride is very dangerous indeed. Travis Perkins must be resolved before any further traffic is allowed.

There is an additional problem due to the success of the Special School in Hatton Hill which has hopelessly inadequate on-site parking. It is not unusual for 20plus cars to park during the day on the opposite side of the road to the school. This makes progress here dangerous and slow, and this road cannot take any more traffic. Indeed Updown Hill cannot take any more traffic either and the Heavy Goods ban on Updown Hill although essential has made the pressure on surrounding roads such as Snows Ride and Hatton Hill intolerable. The access road within the development runs the risk of being nose to tail with traffic unable to get out at either end. The right turn on to the A30 will be very dangerous as cutting across the traffic so near traffic coming in and out from Snows Ride will be impossible.

How is emergency access for Fire and Police to be assured? There clearly have been no real vehicle counts down as part of this application. The A30 queues back in both directions frequently, due to heavy traffic, Sunningdale Level Crossing and Parking on the road.

They assume an average age of 85, mainly single women and around a car trip once a minute. The fact is that almost all residents will have grocery deliveries, friends and other visitors and generally being where it is this will inevitably mean the use of vehicles. The application in our opinion underestimates the effect on Windlesham and within the site.

The residents of the new development run the risk of being unable to freely leave at any point in the day. There are local shopping places accessible at Lavershot Barns and the A30 garages. Trips to these will be hazardous due to fast moving traffic and narrow or non-existent footways.

Location and facilities

To read various planning applications you would think that the current bus service solves all the access problems.

We are, of course, lucky in this day and age to have a bus service, but it is wholly inadequate as an encouragement to use as an alternative to a car. There are 3 services on Saturday mornings but not after lunch. No service on Sunday and 8 buses between 9 and 9 on weekdays. However if for instance you wish to go to Lightwater to the Doctor or Dentist or the nearest Supermarket , although you can get there you may well have to remain there for 90 minutes to get a bus back.

There is a table on page 6 of the Transport assessment giving access to various locations. We do not think that many 75+ year olds will cycle to a Hospital appointment at Heatherwood which according to the table 2.3 is merely 25 minutes cycling away. Also the suggestion of the 30 minute walk to Sunningdale Station obviously comes from someone sitting at a desk who has not tried what is actually quite an unpleasant walk.

Facilities in Windlesham are insufficient to satisfy needs and the village centre is a long way from this development. There is no great range of “essential” shops within easy access.

Density

Strictly this is a matter for a future detailed application, but it needs to be considered here because it effects the entire viability of the scheme. Presumably the developer has come up with the number of dwellings which make this scheme financially viable. That together with the need to include the SANG mean that the dwellings in the developed area of the site are very close together and I imagine may lessen the appeal to prospective purchasers. The density looks higher than Snows Ride or neighbouring roads. As we say elsewhere the parking calculations seem very optimistic and finding room for adequate spaces may be difficult.

This all directly contravenes the Windlesham Neighbourhood Plan, Policy 2.1 which states that new applications should maintain established density, general scale of development and style and separation of buildings. In our minds this raises the question of the viability of the entire scheme.

Surrey Heath Borough Council’s Local Plan PolicyCP2 is in conflict with the massing of the built environment closing off the open landscape. The development is inappropriate in the context of its surroundings and is detrimental to the quality of the local natural environment.

The proposed development encloses open green infrastructure and does not meaningfully support “improved access” or opportunity for informal and formal recreation through the use of green infrastructure.

This is so important that there is a separate paragraph on the Green and Blue Infrastructure elsewhere in this submission.

Consultation with residents.

There has been very poor consultation in the Community for these proposals. The Developer has made very little effort to consult wider than those residents who it felt it had to consult. Thus even people on the wider Snows Ride Development have not seen anything about it.

There have been two public displays on the scheme, which gave very outline information. The first of these was just before Christmas ( 4th November2023) . The Society did circulate its members to make them aware of that. It however irritated many residents as it was held in Sunningdale Village Hall, a distance from Windlesham. The Developers claim that there was nowhere in Windlesham to hold it was hotly disputed by various venues in Windleham. The second similar consultation was held in Windlesham on 13^th January 2024.

The Society has not been involved in any consultations as such. We take the view that we consider and comment when we have the proposals, and we can reflect the views of the members we serve. A group of members on Snows ride have been active in getting a flier out to the whole village and it has been on social media. The developer however has not been very active at all.

Ecological Impact Assessment

The Society believe that the Ecological Assessment should be organised by Surrey Heath Borough Council. The assessment needs to be entirely independent. None of the conclusions in this Assessment have been audited or cross checked.

Summary of issues material to land use decisions according to the report are fairly minimal.

It confirms the hedgerows along Snows Ride qualify as “important”. A part of that will have to be removed to allow the various pedestrian and vehicular access. That should not be allowed to happen.

There are several rare and common species of bats. It is likely there are bat roosts in the trees. They should be preserved.

No evidence of badgers, there was a Barn Owl and Red kite seen but no evidence of residence.

The important habitats are the Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland and the Hedgerows. Presumably the Developer has protected these, if not they must be protected.

There is Giant Knotweed present.

The things of elevated importance listed are Goat Moth, Corn Spurry and trailing Tormentil, and some Red and Amber list birds.

The bat roosts are in the trees bordering the A30 , the proposed access will disturb them.

Evidence was found of plant species where on two areas of the site where the ground is seasonly waterlogged.

The boundary woodlands and the associated mature trees are stated to be a significant resource for woodland invertebrates including a large colony of stag beetles

The SANG is larger than the requirements for the development but if iot is to be used the walking routes shown elsewhere in the application need radical alteration as they are shown as a series of tiny walks not interconnected.

The Consultant calculates a bio-diversity net gain from the development of 21.22% in habitats and 62.5% in hedgerows.

Much of this comes from stopping horses grazing on the land which has led to poor quality grass. The grassland in the SANG will be of a higher quality after time to produce the gain. The removal of horses from the development is not a material matter in this respect. The horses can be removed without the development being there in anyway.

The biodiversity net gain claimed could also have been achieved by managing the existing space with the objective of improving bio-diversity. It is a non-argument which does not support the development.

Even after the development these gains will only be achieved by the rigorous attachment of conditions which must be upheld in perpetuity.

Trees

The tree reports indicate no TPOs on the site but a large number of trees, importantly having some 22 different species. 10 trees will be removed including oaks to allow access.

We believe that TPOs should be placed on all significant trees like for instance T149, this will protect trees against error or bad judgement by developers and their groundwork teams and will also protect the trees from future residents.

New planting lacks precision. There are no locations or quantities. This needs to be addressed in the final planning application. Our view is that all planting should be English long-lasting varieties and subject to three-year inspections and replacement if not thriving. The hedgerows are protected, and new planting must be in line with what is there already.

We note the provisions to be made whilst the development is taking place

The Landscape design Statement is full of as yet undeveloped ideas such as Kitchen Gardens, games lawns, orchard walks etc. From a marketing perspective these sound very nice but as with other parts of the application they lack any detail about how these might be sustainably maintained. It looks from this as if the development would fail to meet DM16 and not have onsite facilities for outdoor sport. However different consultants in the health impact assessment do talk about the provision of outside sports facilities.

The sustainability strategy has nothing to offer.”100% of dwellings electricity demand will be offset etc “where spatial constraints and grid connections allow” i e just possibly.

We await the detailed application to see where the “resting point”, pétanque games, bird hide, bug hotel, bird and bat boxes are to be situated.

Green and Blue Infrastructure.

The Green and Blue Infrastructure statement consists of a site plan showing the massing of the built environment and the proposed creation of the SANG.

To make sense of this needs reference to the planning guidance “Surrey -principles for Green and Blue Infrastructure together with “best practice” examples published as supplementary planning guidance.

The Green and Blue infrastructure map falls short of the principles underpinning Surrey’s policy.

The proposed development of the site, as detailed in the Green and Blue Infrastructure, does not appear to provide a strategy for linking the use of green space and open landscapes. These are important principles which underpin Green and Blue Infrastructure Planning.

The proposed development goes against the Green and Blue Strategies commended by Surrey County Council as best practice by creating fragmented and isolated habitats.

The proposal does not improve walking and cycling routes between settlements and the surrounding countryside. Also it does not improve quality and connectivity of public rights of way in line with the Surrey rights of way improvement plan.

The Society would expect to see any such approved development fully embracing Green and Blue Infrastructure principles by providing Infrastructure Assets which are resilient to Urbanisation.

It is of considerable concern to the Society and the Windlesham Community that the Sustainability Statement makes clear that the site layout has been specifically designed to support FURTHER DEVELOPMENT.

Biodiversity/SANG etc.

The current field provides safe and suitable habitats for all sorts of wild life. If this massive over-development proceeds the balance of habitats will be disturbed and lost. As we have commented in the introduction the mention of the SANG being such a great thing is an irrelevance as it is entirely unnecessary if there is no development. It is currently there.

The creation of the SANG and the planting of hedgerows is, as the Parish Council say a mitigation for development and not as reason for it.

Considerable bat habitats are identified but there are no recommendations about bat protection measures. This seems to be an important omission.

There are no proposals for the maintenance of the environment once completed. The detailed application must address this.

Lighting

The developers “External Lighting Strategy” make no mention of the light pollution caused by the massing of the blocks of apartments. This will impinge on the Chobham Common rare Dark Sky Area.

Flooding

Residents have complained about flooding. Some properties on the edge of the Snows Ride Estate flood regularly. This point was made in responses to the application for screening for this site. There needs to be a wider testing by bore holes as the plan showing where the bore holes were seems flawed.

Air Quality Assessment

This report is a non-event as the proposals will have no effect on the overall air quality.  Which ignores the increase in levels due to vehicles near the site Also the proximity of the A30 may mean residents experience higher quantities of air pollution even though obviously this won’t effect the overall Surrey Heath figure.

During development there will be a distinct possibility of there being excessive dust which will need a plan.

ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY

This is an extensive aspirational report as how to comply with Government targets, development standards and construction industry guidelines. It is for the developer a tick box exercise. We would wish to see a strong demonstration of a policy commitment to the aspirational statement through measurable deliverables. These will require rigorous controls and inspection throughout the development in each of the sustainability themes. The aspirational commitment to Surrey policies leaves no room for the requirements of the local community as stated in the introduction.

The massed built development the “open landscape” is closed off.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Summary – generic, confusing but consistently one-sided

The Economic Statement was prepared by Stantec Development Economics, which appears to be a large Canadian consulting firm, with 28 offices in the UK, so on the face of it a substantial organisation. They also did the Health Impact Assessment .

The Society would expect an economic impact statement to consider both the incremental benefits and incremental costs attributed to the development in order to arrive at a net position for the Surrey Heath and Windlesham.

To that extent, The Society’s view is that this is a very one-sided and boiler plate report that was most likely prepared by someone from a desktop. It is run on assumptions based on Oxford Economics forecasts, HM Treasury The Green Book and the odd Retirement Village assumption, but I can imagine you could change the location to Camberly, Bagshot, Bracknell, Reading, and you get broadly the same numbers.

It focuses on the GROSS economic benefit that will be generated (i) during the construction process, and (ii) the annual ongoing operational phase. There is also some spurious assumption around the monetary impact of wellbeing and saving the NHS £1.4m per annum.

There is no mention of the NET economic benefit after considering the additional costs and impacts to service these homes (e.g. council tax is seen as a benefit, but that shouldn’t be seen as free money for the council with no obligations so considering it as pure benefit is misleading) or the cost to the NHS for those already living on Snows Ride having to deal with construction (traffic risks and noise and dust) for at least 3 years.

In the case of Council Tax it is not clear what this is based on. Most residents will get Single Person Discount and there are considerable costs involved in Refuse Collection, Street Sweeping, Highways Maintenance etc.

Moreover, there is a broad assumption that these GROSS benefits are all incremental, effectively new workers and new residents are all moving to this development from outside Surrey Heath. The economic report is saying that the gross incremental opportunity is X, which I understand, however, I suspect the reality this will be more subdued, for example, where someone buys affordable homes having moved out of their parents, this would dilute the gross benefits stated.

Overall, the economic statement indicates the following benefits:

Phase	GVA	Period
Construction phase	£85.8m	34 or 38 months or 67 months
Operational phase	£6.5m	Annually
Social Benefits	£1.7m	Annually

The economic statement uses the term Gross Value Added (“GVA”), which is defined as “Net economic output, or productivity, measure in £’s per annum (or a given fixed period), broadly equivalent to the sum of an enterprises wages and retained profit (or output less intermediate consumption)”.

Construction Phase – Benefit to Surrey Heath residents is assumed to be £27.4m, not £85.8m but this is before costs!!!

The timetable for construction very confusing. Page 7 of the report notes the Development will be built over a 67-month period (July 2026 to February 2032). Page 9 notes a construction period of 38 months, and then the summary on the last page suggests a 34 month period. Therefore, it is difficult to determine over what period the GVA’s calculated are based.

Additionally, the £85.8m presented is misleading. Whilst there will be job creation, both directly attributed to the construction and indirect construction jobs, the economic statement indicates a 68% leakage rate meaning only £27.4m will relate to the Surrey Heath residents, equivalent to 87 FTEs. Doing the maths, if the construction phase is 38 months that is £100k per person – still very lucrative work!

What is not considered is that there will be 272 construction vans (Additional to lorries and other large vehicles or machinery) up and down snows ride every day for just over 3 years (based on 38 months) doing significant damage to the roads around the development, which will need to be remediated one assumes by the council.

Employment effect	Total	Leakage	Benefit to Surrey Heath
Direct jobs	£36.2m	£24.5m	£11.7m
Indirect jobs	£49.6m	£33.8m	£15.8m
Total	£85.8m	£58.4m	£27.4m
Direct jobs (FTEs)	118	80	38
Indirect jobs (FTEs)	154	105	49
Total FTEs	272	185	87

HEALTH IMPACT

The Stantec Health Assessment is poorly written with many typos and is big on boiler plate policy references at many levels from National to Surrey to Surrey Heath and then to Windlesham. It is a high-level desk review which is scarce on facts and makes quite tenuous assumptions about how the development will meet needs.

It has some important factual errors. It states Lightwater Surgery is closed to new patients and has reached capacity at a Doctor; Patient ratio of 1.2615. In fact it is now taking new patients and the ratio is 1.1374 well below prescribed standards of 1.1800.

The figures for other surgeries are corrected in the part of this response on Doctor’s Surgeries.

We would point out that some NHS Dentist provision is available in Chobham, Lightwater and Bagshot. The Bagshot facility is only a short car ride direct along the A30.

There are pharmacies in Bagshot, Windlesham and Sunningdale but they all really need car access. They are a 30-minute walk away at least.

The application does not say how cottages are adapted or whether they will be custom adapted for the purchasers. There is no mention of how the 24-hour care will be funded or the other facilities.

There is much mention of the club house and sports facilities but no mention of how the ongoing costs of these facilities are to be met. The Health Impact assessment does not mention the access to the Golf Club and Social Membership. It mentions in passing the Field of Remembrance as a park and sports facility but does not mention the coffee shop, community facilities, open air gym and children’s play area all available to free for all. These well-run existing facilities may make the Snows Ride provision difficult to justify or sustain.

We don’t understand the mention of Community Facilities at UCB Windlesham at section 1.2.5. We are unaware of any such facilities although they may provide things for their employees.

As mentioned elsewhere they make much of the healthy environment they will create ignoring the environment they will destroy.

The 2 hours a week support provided is said to minimise travel by the “inmates” reducing pollution and noise. There is no mention of the pollution and noise by the sizeable number of visitors and deliveries noted under access and Travel.