Elmbridge Local Plan, Autumn Update

Elmbridge Local Plan

Autumn Update. Stoke d’Abernon Residents’ Association, October 2018

Download the complete presentation slides here.

  • Now-May 2019: collection and consideration of evidence.
  • June 2019: preferred options document published
  • Aug-Sep 2019: Regulation 18 consultation
  • Autumn 2019: Final Plan document published
  • Jan-Feb 2020: Regulation 19 consultation
  • March 2020: Submission of plan
  • July-Sep 2020: Examination of the plan by the Planning Inspectorate
  • Jan 2021: Likely adoption date

Why The Delay?

  • New National Planning Policy Framework published in July 2018
  • 2 key documents not produced by outside suppliers in time: Flood Risk Assessment (Environment Agency), Transport Assessment (SCC) – in turn delaying other work
  • Cannot consult during election purdah*
  • Advantage of not being first mover

*Note: This means the Elmbridge council elections in May 2019

Current Situation

  • Elmbridge is in a local Strategic Housing Partnership group with Kingston, Epsom & Ewell & Mole Valley
  • We compare our housing needs with theirs and consider cross-boundary and common strategic issues.
  • Kingston subject to wider London needs
  • Epsom slightly ahead of Elmbridge at present

Objectively Assessed Housing Need

  • The Government has imposed its own methodology for assessing a planning authority’s need for housing.
  • Under the 2016 calculation, Elmbridge needed 474 new homes per year for the next 10 years.
  • Double the number being built: in 2015-16 only 243 units were built
  • Under the new methodology called OAHN 612 new homes per year required.
  • This is the starting-point.

The homes we need

  • 28% 1 bedroom
  • 42% 2 bedroom
  • 29% 3 bedroom
  • 1% 4+ bedroom
  • 25% open market housing
  • 21% affordable (non-social) housing
  • 54% social housing
  • Source: 2016 SHMA assessment

Urban Capacity Study

  • Examines what can be developed within existing settlements.
  • Local Cobham & Oxshott councillors were consulted about our own areas.
  • Focussed on brownfield sites and sites where the current use could be intensified.
  • Likely to involve higher density in built-up areas. But not like Woking or Staines (Spelthorne).
  • Elmbridge might achieve about 50% of the OAHN target by increasing urban capacity.

Green Belt Sub-division study

  • Carried out by Ove Arup & Partners
  • 57% of Elmbridge by area classed as Green Belt
  • Examines the current Green Belt boundaries
  • Scores plots of land according to whether they are performing “poorly”, “moderately” or “strongly” as Green Belt sites
  • Required by the NPPF to review our Green Belt when preparing a new local plan.
  • Not include land “which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open”. (NPPF paragraph 139(b))

Green Belt Sub-division study

  • 2016 version identified 3 strategic sites, 2 in Cobham / Oxshott: Chippings Farm and Knowle Park
  • Roundly rejected by the public
  • Ove Arup have been told they must not repeat the error
  • Likely to produce a number of small sites across Elmbridge.
  • Cobham cannot expect to be untouched.

Drake Park

  • Green Belt site
  • 1,024 residential units (50% affordable)
  • Supermarket, pub, primary school, offices, doctors’ surgery
  • Refused permission by planning sub-committee. Developer appealed.
  • Public inquiry began in October 2017
  • Appeal refused 24th May 2018

Matters Considered

  • Inspector held that Elmbridge only has 2.65 years’ land supply.
  • Inspector found that this would not improve in the next 5 years if Drake Park did not proceed.
  • He considered it likely that Elmbridge’s Green Belt boundaries would be amended as part of its Local Plan preparation.
  • The location of the development would cause Walton & Hersham to sprawl.
  • Would also affect Esher: the Mole is not a sufficient boundary to compensate for loss of the open land.


  • The land being developed is a “strategic arm of Green Belt which is already narrow and fragmented”.
  • The benefits of the development do not outweigh the harm caused by the loss of the open space
  • Therefore, no “very special circumstances” exist to justify granting planning permission


  • Lack of a 5 year housing supply makes Elmbridge more vulnerable to appeals.
  • The Inspector expects that we will need to amend Green Belt boundaries to meet housing need over the plan period.
  • The Green Belt remains a formidable obstacle for developers to overcome.

Our Choices

  • Do we accept that we must release some Green Belt land from the outset?
  • Do we point to our local constraints and refuse to “chase numbers”?
  • Some Green Belt land is far from attractive: “brownfield in the Green Belt”.
  • But if we offer that up, we might open the floodgates.

Download the complete presentation slides here.

Enter your name and email address below to receive updates about Stoke D'Abernon and the local area as they are published on this website. You can unsubscribe at any time.