Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Feb 2013) - Runnymede Borough Council

IDP 

Infrastructure Delivery Plan 

February 2013

Left Intentionally Blank

Executive Summary 

1 The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and its accompanying Infrastructure 

Schedule (IS) aim to support the production of the Council’s Local Plan and 

identify the future infrastructure and service needs for the Borough for the plan 

period up to 2026. Specifically, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan: 

 

 

 

 

Provides an overview of existing infrastructure provision (subject to data 

availability), and considers the condition and/or capacity of existing 

infrastructure provision and how well existing needs are met; 

Identifies future infrastructure requirements over the plan period to 

support population change, housing and employment growth as 

forecasted using Local Plan projections (and evidence in the supporting 

evidence based documents); 

Seeks to provide an indication of the potential costs and means of funding 

the required infrastructure through, for example: public funding, developer 

contribution and other sources to help determine gaps in funding over the 

Local Plan period; 

Includes a section which outlines the governance arrangements that will 

be put in place, and which will facilitate infrastructure planning and 

delivery into the future. 

2 The IDP and IS have been developed in consultation with various 

infrastructure providers and have evolved in tandem with the Local Plan. The 

IDP and IS provide a snapshot at the time of printing and are therefore 

intended to be ‘living’ documents which are regularly updated as 

developments and projects progress and evolve over the plan period, and as 

new projects are identified. 

3 The range of infrastructure assessed in the IDP is wide ranging and spans 

social, green and physical infrastructure designations. A summary of the 

findings of each chapter are detailed below: 

Chapter 6- Education 

Pre-school (Early Years Provision) Childcare 

4 At the current time, the majority of Early Years settings are run by private 

providers. In addition there are a number of maintained nursery schools, 

Children’s Centres and some primary schools with maintained nurseries 

attached to them in the Borough. 

5 Surrey County Council (SCC) has a duty to ensure that there are sufficient 

Early Years (EY) places for all 3 and 4 year old children across Surrey 

although they do not have a duty to provide the places. Between 2013 and 

2025, SCC estimate that a further 223 EY places will be required to meet 

housing growth forecasted over this same period. The cost of each EY place 

is £10,019. As such, the provision of these places between 2013 and 2025 will 

cost in the region of £2,234,237. 

6 It is envisaged that the majority of these places will be delivered through the 

private sector. Where additional early years places are required in an area 

however, SCC has advised that the SCC Early Years Service would identify a 

suitable location for this infrastructure and invite bids from prospective 

providers to run these new settings. In terms of specific projects, it is 

Page | 1 Runnymede IDP DRAFT – February 2013

considered noteworthy to mention that a private nursery will be provided as 

part of the development at the former DERA site during the plan period. 

Primary education 

7 There are a range of private and state run primary schools within the Borough 

which meet existing demand. Between 2013 and 2025, SCC estimates that 

796 primary pupils will be generated by the increase in housing which is 

forecasted. This equates to 27 additional primary classrooms (based on a 

classroom size of 30). The cost of each primary place is approximately 

£12,547 (or £376,417 per class). As such, between 2013 and 2025, the cost 

of providing these places will be in the region of £10,163,070. 

8 A large proportion of the forecasted housing over the plan period will be 

delivered at the former DERA site which is expected to come forward in the 

second and possibly third delivery periods. As such, a new primary education 

facility will come forward as part of the development of the site to serve the 

needs of the proposed development and the surrounding area. A number of 

other school expansion plans are proposed by SCC in the Borough at the 

current time to meet growth. 

Secondary education 

9 The Borough contains a mix of state run and private secondary schools. 

There is also a Special School located in Addlestone (the Philip Southcote 

School) which caters for children and young people with learning difficulties 

(providing for children aged 11-16). At present there is considered to be 

sufficient secondary school provision to meet the existing needs within the 

Borough. 

10 An increasing population size generated, in part by housing growth, over the 

plan period will mean however that there will be an under provision if no 

expansion of the Borough’s secondary schools occurs. The anticipated 

development at the former DERA site will, in particular, have an impact on 

demand for secondary school places. SCC estimates that between 2013 and 

2025, 573 secondary pupils will be generated in total up to 2025. This equates 

to 19 additional classrooms (based on a classroom size of 30). There is 

projected to be a shortage of secondary school places in the Borough by 

2017. By 2021, it is estimated that 5 or 6 additional forms of entry will be 

required in Runnymede. 

11 SCC estimate that the cost of providing a secondary place is in the region of 

£18,906 (or £567,180 per class). As such, between 2013 and 2025, the cost 

of providing these places will be in the region of £10,776,420. The only school 

expansion plans which are known of at the current time are at Sir William 

Perkins’ School and the American School in Switzerland (TASIS) (both private 

schools). There are no known expansion plans at any of the state run schools 

in the Borough, although it seems likely that some expansion of state run 

schools will be required over the plan period to meet growth. 

Further education, higher education and adult education 

12 Further education is considered unlikely to be as sensitive to housing growth 

and population increase over the Local Plan as EY, primary and secondary 

provision as its operational catchment is considerably greater than the 

boundary of the Borough. Provision is both through private and public 

providers. There is considered to be sufficient provision of this type of 

infrastructure in north Surrey to meet both the current needs of the Borough’s 

students, and to meet growth over the plan period. 


13 With regard to Higher Education, Royal Holloway University of London 

(RHUL) is the only provider in the Borough. RHUL has plans to expand and 

accommodate growth over the plan period. Details of the University’s plans 

are unknown at this time although it is expected that the University will submit 

a masterplan to the Council which will outline specific development plans and 

proposed phases of development over the plan period. It is envisaged that 

LP05 will allow RHUL with some scope to accommodate growth on the 

campus over the plan period. 

14 There are considered to be sufficient facilities for Adult Education in the 

Borough at the current time. Given that enrolment numbers in Adult Education 

are reported to have dropped, it is considered reasonable to assume that the 

existing facilities in the Borough do have sufficient capacity to accommodate 

growth over the plan period. 

Chapter 7-Transport 

Strategic road network and non strategic road network 

15 It is considered likely that development proposals in the Borough (and across 

Surrey and the London Fringe sub region more generally) over the plan period 

will place additional pressure on both the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and 

non strategic road network which run through Runnymede, especially given 

the high car ownership in the region. 

16 No works are proposed on the SRN in the Borough during the plan period, 

although a number of schemes are proposed across the Borough’s non 

strategic road network. These schemes range from road safety schemes, to 

highway improvements, to more major schemes such as improvements to the 

Runnymede Roundabout. Highway works will also be required to facilitate the 

development at the former DERA site. The cost of all of the forecasted 

schemes are not yet known, however based on the information provided (by 

SCC) to date, it is estimated that the schemes proposed across the non 

strategic road network will cost in excess of £13,149,500 across the plan 

period. Only some of the required funding has been secured at this time. 

Rail infrastructure 

17 The Borough contains 6 railway stations, all of which provide regular daily 

commuter services (with the exception of Longcross station which has a more 

limited offering). It is known that the use of the Borough’s stations has 

increased substantially over the last 10 years. Increases in housing and 

commercial development in the Borough over the plan period are likely to put 

additional pressure on the rail infrastructure in the Borough. The effects that 

development in Surrey will have over the coming years on the rail network are 

being assessed currently by SCC (who has commissioned ARUP). The 

results will be published in the Surrey Rail Strategy (expected publication 

date- Summer 2013). 

18 The only known works planned to any of the stations in the Borough over the 

plan period are at Longcross Station as part of the redevelopment of the 

former DERA site. The cost of the works to this station are unknown but will 

be funded by South West Trains and the developer. 

Bus network 

19 Thirteen commercial bus services run within or through the Borough, 8 of 

which are defined as frequent (defined by SCC as services which operate at 


least once an hour, 5 days a week, all year round). Services operate to most 

towns and villages within the Borough although service provision varies in 

different areas. Currently, SCC subsidises three out of four of the 250 services 

in Surrey because they are not commercially viable for bus operators. 

20 There are a number of notable bus related schemes which are proposed to be 

provided in the Borough over the plan period, in particular the introduction of 

bus services in the Causeway Employment Area and serving the development 

at the former DERA site. The Runnymede Business Partnership Yellow 

School Bus scheme operated by First Group will continue to require funding to 

survive over the plan period. The SCC Egham Sustainable Transport initiative 

will also contain a number of measures which will help tackle existing 

congestion, bring forward planned development opportunities and unlock 

economic growth in the Borough. This package includes (amongst other 

things) bus priority measures. The cost of this initiative will be in the region of 

£3.7 million. 

Walking and cycling 

21 The Borough contains a network of footpaths, cycle routes and other rights of 

way. A number of pedestrian and cycling improvement schemes are proposed 

across the plan period. In particular, the SCC Egham Sustainable Transport 

initiative (as mentioned above) will contain 29 cycling and walking 

infrastructure measures/improvements in Runnymede, concentrating on 

railway line crossing points that could be crossed easily by walking or cycling. 

The cost of the proposed pedestrian and cycling improvements schemes (this 

excludes the Egham Sustainable Transport initiative) would be in excess of 

£1,054,000. A number of the proposed schemes still need costing by SCC. 

Community transport and parking 

22 A range of community transport schemes operate in the Borough although 

Runnymede Borough Council is the biggest provider of community transport 

and provides the ‘Runnymede Community Transport Service’. At the current 

time SCC subsidise the community transport service offered by Runnymede 

Borough Council (providing £50,000 to the cost of running the Runnymede 

Community Transport Service each year). Other services rely on volunteers 

and/or charitable donations. There are no known community transport projects 

planned in the Borough over the plan period which would require funding. 

23 There are a range of publically and privately owned car parks which serve the 

Borough, the use of which vary. There are however no known plans to 

increase the capacity of existing car parks in the Borough over the plan 

period. The County Council has preferred strategies to try and manage 

parking in built up areas around the County, and improve the efficiency and 

cost effectiveness of their civil parking. 

Chapter 8-Health 

Primary healthcare 

24 A range of dental practices exist in the Borough, predominantly in the 

Borough’s urban centres. Community pharmacies and high street optometrists 

are also located throughout the Borough. There are 9 GP surgeries in the 

Borough, 5 of which have a greater patient to GP ratio that the Surrey 

average. These surgeries are located in Virginia Water, Ottershaw, Staines 

(the part of which lies within the Borough) and Egham. In Egham, Virginia 

Water and Staines, the GP practices each have over 2000 patients per doctor. 


25 Despite the forecasts for housing growth in the Borough however and despite 

the generally high patient numbers per GP already experienced in parts of the 

Borough, there are no known plans for new GP surgeries over the plan period. 

On the basis of the existing GP to patient ratios however, it seems likely that a 

new GP surgery will need to be provided in the Virginia Water area over the 

plan period, given the number of dwellings proposed to come forward at the 

former DERA site. Other existing practices may be required to expand to meet 

growth. 

Secondary healthcare 

26 St Peter’s Hospital is the largest provider of secondary healthcare in the 

Borough. The cumulative effects of continued population growth accompanied 

with a change in the age profile of the Borough (and the secondary healthcare 

catchment area generally) over the plan period will present challenges for 

healthcare provision and impact on secondary healthcare services in the 


27 A masterplan for the redevelopment of the St Peters Hospital site has 

however already been approved under RU.09/1093 which has established a 

flexible, comprehensive site wide development strategy that will guide all 

future planning applications on the site for the next 20 years. It is not 

envisaged that any further development (outside of the agreed parameters) 

will be required within the plan period. The costs of the works proposed under 

the masterplan are not known although it is envisaged that the works would 

be funded by Ashford and St Peter's Hospital Trust (ASPH) and the Surrey 

and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SABP). 

Private healthcare, nursing and residential care 

28 Both Runnymede’s and Surrey’s population are predicted to rise over the plan 

period with notable increases in the number of people aged 65 and over. The 

number of people with dementia is also predicted to rise over the plan period. 

There are a number of residential care homes/nursing homes in the Borough 

which provide for elderly people, people with dementia and people with 

learning disabilities. The total capacity of these facilities is unknown. There is 

also a range of private and council owned sheltered housing schemes in the 


29 The 2011/2012 adult social care commissioning profile for Runnymede JSNA 

reported that across the range of supported housing services, Runnymede is 

relatively well provided in respect of services for people with mental health 

issues. There is a surplus of traditional sheltered housing for older people in 

Runnymede but there is an undersupply of housing and support for those who 

are physically frail or have dementia (through extra care packages for 

example). There is also a shortage of housing options for people with learning 

disabilities. As such, it is considered that these will be the type of schemes 

which may be required over the plan period. The IDP contains details of 

several schemes which are proposed to come forward in the Borough over the 

plan period. 

30 It should be noted however that the Government wishes to see a strategic 

shift to investment in community preventative services. This is likely to place 

significant pressure on social care systems over the plan period as more 

people are supported in their local community. 


Chapter 9-Utilities 

31 This chapter considers energy infrastructure (gas and electricity) mobile 

communications, drinking water supply and waste water treatment. It is only in 

the waste water treatment sub chapter that additional works are noted to be 

proposed over the plan period. This would be at the Chertsey Sewerage 

Works where Thames Water propose to invest £9 million to make 

improvements. There are no other identified capacity issues with the 

Borough’s gas and electricity infrastructure, mobile communications network 

or drinking water supply which would prevent growth occurring over the plan 

period. 

Chapter 10-Waste Management 

32 Responsibility for strategic waste management in Surrey lies with Surrey 

County Council. In the Borough itself, there is one Community Recycling 

Centre (at Lyne Lane), as well as a number of local recycling facilities. There 

are no known capacity issues at any of the Borough’s recycling facilities, and 

there are no expansion plans for any of the existing facilities over the plan 

period. Noteworthy of mention however are the anaerobic digestion facility, 

eco-pods, and wood drying and pelleting facility which have been approved at 

Trumps Farm, Kitsmead Lane, Lyne. The cost of providing these facilities is 

not known, but would be funded by Agrivert ltd. 

33 The eco-park which has been approved at Charlton Lane, Shepperton, 

although situated outside the Borough, will serve the needs of Spelthorne, 

Elmbridge and Runnymede for the treatment of mostly residual household 

waste and will be delivered over the plan period. As such this scheme is also 

considered worthy of mention. 

Chapter 11-Green Infrastructure 

Designated Nature sites 

34 A number of internationally designated sites (which are afforded the highest 

level of protection for both their habitats and species), and nationally protected 

sites (sites designated for being areas of outstanding value for their plants, 

animals, geological or physiological features designations) are located either 

wholly or partly within the Borough’s boundaries (or on land adjacent to the 

Borough boundaries). There are also a number of sites within the Borough 

which have more local or regional importance. There are no known plans to 

designate any further nature sites in or adjacent to the Borough at the current 

time (either internationally, nationally, regionally or locally designated sites). 

Suitable alternative natural green space (SANGS) 

35 At the current time, the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace 

(SANGS) within the Borough prevents new development from having a 

significant effect on the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area 

(TBHSPA). The quality and amount of SANGS within the Borough will 

continue to be monitored over the plan period and the Council’s strategy 

reviewed in regard to the TBHSPA as required. Overall, it is estimated that 

over the plan period, up to 699 units could come forward in the zone of 

influence of the TBHSPA. The Borough’s existing SANGS have the capacity 

to absorb this increase in unit numbers. The cost of providing and maintaining 


the Borough’s SANGS over the plan period is estimated, at the current time, 

to be in the region of £1,977,600. 

36 During the plan period, it is known that a new SANG will also be provided at 

the former DERA site to accompany the proposed mixed use development 

which is forecasted to come forward. 

Natural and semi natural green space 

37 It is considered that there are sufficient natural and semi natural green spaces 

within the Borough to support the forecasted level of development over the 

plan period (providing that this type of green infrastructure is also provided as 

part of the development at the former DERA site). As noted in the Council’s 

Open Spaces Study (2010) however, there is potential to improve some of the 

existing natural and semi natural green spaces which exist in the Borough 

over the plan period. In particular, a number of schemes are proposed on the 

Cabrera Trust land in Virginia Water if the funding can be found. The cost of 

the works proposed would be in the region of £42,500. 

Amenity open space 

38 The provision of amenity open spaces within the Borough is considered 

sufficient at the current time. During the plan period, amenity open space will 

be provided as part of the development at the former DERA site. Other, 

smaller developments which come forward in the Borough over the plan 

period could utilise amenity open spaces which currently exist. Capacity of 

these existing amenity green spaces will need to be assessed during the plan 

period to ensure that growth will not exceed capacity. 

Chapter 12-Leisure facilities 

39 Both indoor and outdoor leisure facilities are considered in this chapter. At the 

current time, a range of leisure facilities are provided throughout the Borough, 

including a number of golf clubs, sports pitches, bowling greens, leisure 

centres, health clubs and community halls. The Council’s Open Space Study 

(2010) found that across the Borough, there is a general under provision of 

accessible outdoor sports facilities. Whilst this may be the case, at the current 

time there are no known plans for new provision in the Borough over the plan 

period. A number of improvement schemes are however proposed at a 

number of Council owned open spaces and parks. The list is extensive and 

the works proposed would cost in the region of £3 million. 

40 In addition, over the plan period, a private gym and community facility will be 

provided at the former DERA site (cost unknown) and the gym equipment is 

proposed to be replaced at Addlestone and Egham Leisure Centres. In 

addition, in the next 3 years, there is an aspiration to install a swimming pool 

and other ancillary facilities at Egham Leisure Centre if the funding can be 

secured. This would cost in the region of £7 million. 

Chapter 13-Culture & Heritage 

41 This chapter considers the Borough’s cultural and heritage makeup, firstly 

looking at the historic and archaeological assets in the Borough and then 

moving on to consider how well served the Borough is in terms of museums, 

theatres, cinemas and the arts. 

42 The existing historic and archaeological assets in the Borough form part of its 

intrinsic character. The impact of new development proposed over the plan 


period on the Borough’s historic and archaeological assets will need to be 

assessed on a case by case basis. Any costs of works to listed buildings or for 

archaeological excavations would normally be funded by the relevant site 

owner/developer. No specific schemes that would need funding over the plan 

period have been identified. 

43 It is concluded that there is sufficient provision of cultural venues and activities 

in the Borough itself and in the area surrounding the Borough to provide for an 

increased population over the plan period. Whilst there are no known plans for 

any new facilities within the Borough at this stage, this is not to say that there 

will not be further opportunities for development or enhancement in this area 

over the plan period. 

Chapter 14-Emergency Services and Flooding 

Police 

44 Surrey Police has undertaken some work to assess future demands on the 

service resulting from population changes and proposed housing development 

over the coming years. Surrey Police has stated that the increase in 

population and households across the County generally is likely to have 

significant impacts on staffing and transport resources. One of the locations in 

which development is considered by the police to have a significant impact on 

the demand for their services is North Surrey (where Runnymede is located). 

Whilst this may be the case however, the Surrey Infrastructure Capacity 

Project Phase 1 Final Report, June 2009 showed that at the time of writing, 

both Addlestone and Egham Police Stations had spare capacity (in terms of 

facilities). Egham Police Station is now for sale for redevelopment. Given that 

this site is being disposed of, it is not envisaged that further facilities will be 

required in the Borough over the plan period. 

45 Associated with crime and disorder, a network of CCTV cameras in the 

Borough currently exist which will need replacing or upgrading over the plan 

period. Extensions to the network are also proposed. The 

upgrading/replacement works and expansion works would have a combined 

cost of £823,000. A number of other specific projects related to crime and 

disorder are proposed including those related to tackling anti social behaviour 

and domestic abuse. The combined cost of all of the projects over the plan 

period is estimated to be £340,500. None of the schemes identified currently 

have any streams of funding in place. 

Fire and Rescue 

46 There are two fire stations in the Borough, which are located at Chertsey and 

Egham. In recent years there has been a significant reduction in firefighter 

posts across Surrey. Within the Borough itself, the number of fire engines has 

also been reduced by removing the 2nd vehicle from Chertsey Fire Station in 

2005. 

47 Up to at least 2020, Surrey Fire and Rescue Services (SFRS) state that in the 

north of Surrey (where Runnymede is located), existing provision will be 

adequate to meet growth. As such, no additional infrastructure is envisaged to 

be required in the Borough over the plan period at this time. 

Ambulance 

48 Surrey is served by the South East Coast Ambulance Service (SECAmb) 

which provides services across the whole of the South East Coast region – 


Kent, Surrey and Sussex. There is one ambulance station within the Borough, 

on the A320-Guildford Road. This is known as Chertsey Ambulance Station. 

49 Chertsey Ambulance Station has been classified as being ‘at serious risk of 

breakdown’ and as such, a rebuild of the station is proposed, on the same site 

as the existing. These works are timetabled to take place in 2014/15. South 

East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust would fund the 

redevelopment works, although the total cost of the project is unknown. 

Flooding and flood defences 

50 Fluvial flooding from the River Thames and its tributaries (the Chertsey 

Bourne, the Addlestone Bourne and River Wey), are the primary sources of 

flooding in Runnymede. The greatest flood risk posed to the Borough is from 

the River Thames, which flows along the eastern boundary of the Borough, 

with the main urban areas of Egham, Chertsey and Addlestone lying (at least 

in part) in areas of high flood risk. In addition, the Basingstoke Canal and Wey 

Navigation discharge into the River Wey which forms the southern boundary 

of the Borough. There are no formal flood defences in the Borough. 

51 Runnymede has been identified as one of the top 10 local authority areas for 

flood risk in England and flood risk in the Borough will continue to be a 

significant issue over the Local Plan period. The Lower Thames Flood Risk 

Management Strategy (LTFRMS) (also referred to as the Lower Thames 

Strategy (LTS)) is proposed in the region. This scheme will reduce the risk of 

river flooding to 15,000 properties with a one per cent annual (1 in 100 year) 

chance of flooding from Datchet to Teddington. The Whole Life Cost 

(excluding inflation) of the LTFRMS is £538m including a contingency of 

£101m. The scheme will be partly funded by Defra Grant in Aid (GiA) funding. 

The remainder will need to come from various forms of external contributions. 

This is a significant amount, currently calculated as at least £114m. 

52 Given the difficulties with securing the funding for the project, works will be 

delivered through separate projects. According to the Environment Agency, 

works are unlikely to start in 2017 as originally stated. During the Local Plan 

period, it is only the individual property protection works proposed under the 

LTFRMS which will be carried out in Runnymede. The civil works and cut 

works are planned to take place after 2026. 

Chapter 15-Community Services & facilities 

Shopping 

53 There are shopping centres in Addlestone, Chertsey, Egham and Virginia 

Water and other shopping parades and other more isolated shops at various 

locations in the Borough. The last retail study carried out in the Borough was 

The Runnymede Retail Study which was published in May 2009. This study 

concluded that whilst each of the three main towns in the Borough (Egham, 

Chertsey and Addlestone) provided for residents’ main food shopping needs, 

none of the towns provided choice. It was also concluded that none of the 

major towns were significant comparison goods shopping destinations. 

Instead, considerable expenditure on these goods was lost to other centres, 

mostly to Staines and Woking. Addlestone was found to buck the trend to a 

degree by providing a limited offer in some categories, notably electrical 

goods and china, glass and utensils. Overall however, the role of the 

Borough’s town centres was concluded to be to provide convenience goods 

shopping and a range of services. Even though the retail study was carried 


out over 3 years ago, the conclusions are still considered to largely apply to 

the Borough’s main centres today. 

54 The most noteworthy schemes which are forecasted to come forward over the 

plan period are at the Arndale Way, Church Road in Egham where permission 

was granted in 2009 under RU.09/0033 for the erection of a 3 storey building 

comprising of an A1 foodstore on the ground floor, together with an 80 bed 

hotel on the first and second floors. Works have commenced on this scheme. 

In addition, the vacant site adjacent to the Council offices in Addlestone is 

earmarked for a mixed use development which is likely to include further retail 

floorspace. It is envisaged that the redevelopment of this site will also take 

place over the plan period. 

Libraries 

55 There is considered to be sufficient library provision in the Borough at the 

current time to meet future needs over the plan period. It is acknowledged 

however that service provision may need to be reviewed as growth occurs to 

ensure that the service provided continues to meet the needs of various 

sectors of the community. Two schemes have been identified that will require 

funding over the course of the plan, the first is the Library Direct service which 

provides means for people who cannot get to a library themselves to have 

library provision. The second relates to IT provision and assistive technologies 

in the Borough’s libraries. Over the plan period, the cost of these services 

combined will be £2,493,765 of which the County will fund £1,851,690. This 

leaves a funding gap of £642,075. 

Services for Older People (Voluntary Services) 

56 Runnymede Borough Council provides a number of discretionary community 

services for its residents. These services are mainly designed and aimed at 

helping older people maintain their independence in a variety of ways 

(although the services can also be utilised by people of any age with a 

disability). Current services provided by the Community Services team include 

day/community centres, community meals, community transport, community 

alarms (the careline service) and independent retirement living. 

57 Runnymede Borough Council (RBC) is continuing to review its spending 

across a range of services, as a result of tightening budgets. This has 

impacted on the delivery of services. The Council is however endeavouring to 

meet the challenges of balancing budgets in the short-term, whilst taking 

steps to prepare for demographic change and respond to new policies in the 

medium to longer term. 

58 Over the plan period, an increase in population coupled with a change in the 

age profile of the Borough’s residents is likely to produce greater demand for 

services for elderly people, although there are no planned schemes at this 

time. Funding of existing services is generally by RBC and SCC. 

Youth Centres 

59 Surrey County Council is responsible for the majority of the services offered to 

this age group including youth centres. The County is continuing to review its 

spending across a range of services including services for young people. As a 

result, this particular provision has gone through and is still going through a 

restructuring process to reduce spending and revise the services offered to 

young people; in order to meet their needs and to increase participation. 

60 Changes to how these services are accessed in conjunction with the changing 

needs of young people and budgetary pressures means it is unlikely any new 


provision will occur over the plan period. Services are currently not at capacity 

and as such, a need to adapt and revise existing provision is the most likely 

outcome over the plan period to ensure that an attractive service is offered to 

young people. 

Places of worship 

61 Surrey Faith Links estimated in 2010 there were in the region of 45 faith 

organisations and places of worship across the Borough. Whilst the majority 

of these are Christian places of worship, the Surrey Muslim Centre is located 

in Albert Road in Addlestone (previously St Augustine Church of England 

church) and there is also a Society of Friends (Quakers) meeting house in 

Egham. There are no synagogues within the Borough. The predomination of 

Christian places of worship reflects the results of the 2001 census which 

found that seventy five percent of Surrey’s population said they were 

Christian. 

62 As communities becomes more diverse, there is a need for sufficient buildings 

to allow for people of various faiths and ethnic backgrounds to worship locally. 

A number of extensions to places of worship in the Borough have been 

granted permission in recent years. These approved schemes may well come 

forward over the plan period. The costs of the works proposed are unknown 

but would be funded privately. 

Cemeteries and crematoriums 

63 There is increasing concern about the availability of burial sites across the 

country and this is an emerging issue in Runnymede. There in no 

crematorium in the Borough although there is generally a good distribution of 

cemeteries and churchyards, but there is a shortage of grave space in some. 

In particular, all of the available space at Addlestone cemetery will be used by 

early 2013 and the cemetery at Thorpe is nearing capacity. As such, options 

for extending both these cemeteries are being explored by the Council at the 

current time. 

64 Whilst the Council’s capital spending programme 2011/12 to 2015/16 

budgeted £199,000 to extend Addlestone Cemetery in 2013/14 (this money 

was for the laying out of a new cemetery on Council owned land), at the 

current time all capital spending has been frozen. It is therefore unclear 

whether this proposal will be realised during the plan period. There is also an 

aspiration to extend Thorpe Cemetery or provide a new cemetery in Thorpe if 

additional land and funding becomes available (the cost would be in the 

region of £50,000 although there are no funds available for the works at this 

time). Both projects would be delivered by RBC. 


This Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) Report is produced in support of the emerging Local 

Plan has been prepared by Runnymede Borough Council. It has been prepared with all 

reasonable skill, care, and diligence within the terms of its duty and within the limitations of 

the resources available to the Council. 

It is based on the information held by Runnymede Borough Council or provided by various 

other stakeholders and statutory consultation bodies. 

This report has been made available to specific consultees and Runnymede Borough Council 

accepts no responsibility whatsoever for comments made by third parties whom this report 

may reference. Runnymede Borough Council does not accept responsibility whatsoever for 

third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies 

upon the opinion at their own risk. 

The fact that Runnymede Borough Council has produced this report shall not preclude the 

Council from subsequently modifying, altering, or adding to it should and if further information 

in connection with any element within the report becomes available.

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 12 

What is the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Infrastructure Schedule ........................ 12 

The production of Infrastructure Delivery Plan ............................................................. 12 

Structure of Document .................................................................................................. 13 

Consultation to Date ..................................................................................................... 14 

CHAPTER 2. CONTEXT ....................................................................................................... 15 

Policy Context ............................................................................................................... 15 

National ..................................................................................................................... 15 

Emerging Local Plan ................................................................................................. 16 

Runnymede Borough Councils Sustainable Community Strategy (2012) ................. 18 

Spatial Context ............................................................................................................. 18 

Population ................................................................................................................. 18 

Economy ................................................................................................................... 19 

Retail ......................................................................................................................... 19 

Environment .............................................................................................................. 19 

Flooding and water .................................................................................................... 20 

Biodiversity ................................................................................................................ 20 

Social Deprivation ..................................................................................................... 21 

Groups and Partnerships .............................................................................................. 22 

Local Economic Partnerships (LEP) .......................................................................... 22 

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITS DELIVERY AGENCIES .......................................................... 22 

Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 22 

Delivery Agencies ......................................................................................................... 23 

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 25 

Overall Approach .......................................................................................................... 25 

Climate Change Risk Assessment ............................................................................... 25 

Delivery Periods ........................................................................................................... 26 

CHAPTER 4. AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT .................................. 27 

Local Plan ..................................................................................................................... 27 

Potential Regeneration, Growth Areas, and Strategic Sites ......................................... 27 

CHAPTER 5. EDUCATION .................................................................................................. 29 

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 29 

Pre-school Childcare (Early Years Provision) and Children’s Centres ......................... 29 

Existing Provision ...................................................................................................... 29 

Local Plan .................................................................................................................. 31 

Future provision ......................................................................................................... 31 

Costs and funding sources ........................................................................................ 32 

Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................... 32 

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 32 

Primary Schools............................................................................................................ 33 

Existing conditions ..................................................................................................... 33 





Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 38 

Secondary Schools ....................................................................................................... 39






Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 43 

Further Education ......................................................................................................... 43 

Existing Provision ...................................................................................................... 43 





Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 45 

Adult Education ............................................................................................................ 45 




Costs & funding sources ........................................................................................... 46 


Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 46 

Higher Education .......................................................................................................... 46 

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 46 

Local Plan Core Strategy .......................................................................................... 47 




Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 47 

CHAPTER 6. TRANSPORT ................................................................................................. 48 

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 48 

Strategic Road Network ................................................................................................ 48 






Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 52 

Non-Strategic Road Network ........................................................................................ 52 






Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 61 

Rail infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 61 






Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 65 

Bus Network ................................................................................................................. 65 

Existing provision ...................................................................................................... 65 


Future provision ......................................................................................................... 67



Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 69 

Walking and Cycling ..................................................................................................... 70 



Future Provision ........................................................................................................ 71 



Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 74 

Community transport .................................................................................................... 74 






Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 76 

Parking .......................................................................................................................... 76 






Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 77 

CHAPTER 7. HEALTH ......................................................................................................... 78 

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 78 

Primary Healthcare ....................................................................................................... 78 






Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 80 

Secondary Healthcare .................................................................................................. 80 






Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 83 

Private healthcare, nursing and residential care .......................................................... 83 

Existing conditions and provision .............................................................................. 83 





Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 89 

CHAPTER 8. UTILITIES ....................................................................................................... 90 

Energy (gas and electricity) .......................................................................................... 90 




Costs and funding sources ........................................................................................ 91


Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 91 

Mobile communications ................................................................................................ 91 






Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 92 

Drinking Water Supply .................................................................................................. 93 






Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 94 

Sewerage Treatment .................................................................................................... 94 






Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 95 

CHAPTER 9. WASTE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................ 96 

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 96 


Local Plan Core Strategy .......................................................................................... 97 




Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 99 

CHAPTER 10. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................... 100 

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 100 

Designated Nature Sites ............................................................................................. 100 

Existing conditions ................................................................................................... 100 

Local Plan ................................................................................................................ 103 

Future provision ....................................................................................................... 103 

Costs and funding sources ...................................................................................... 103 

Risk Assessment ..................................................................................................... 103 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 103 

Suitable alternative natural green space (SANGS) .................................................... 103 



Future Provision ...................................................................................................... 107 



Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 109 

Natural and semi-natural green space ....................................................................... 109 





Risk Assessment ..................................................................................................... 112

Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 112 

Amenity Open Space .................................................................................................. 112 






Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 113 

CHAPTER 11. LEISURE FACILITIES .............................................................................. 114 

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 114 

Outdoor leisure facilities ............................................................................................. 114 


Local Plan Core Strategy ........................................................................................ 114 




Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 119 

Indoor leisure facilities ................................................................................................ 119 






Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 121 

CHAPTER 12. CULTURE AND HERITAGE ..................................................................... 122 

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 122 

Historic and Archaeological Assets ............................................................................ 122 






Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 125 

Museums, Theatres, Cinema and the Arts ................................................................. 125 






Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 127 

CHAPTER 13. EMERGENCY SERVICES ........................................................................ 128 

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 128 

Police .......................................................................................................................... 128 






Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 133 

Fire and Rescue ......................................................................................................... 133 


Local Plan ................................................................................................................ 134




Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 135 

Ambulance .................................................................................................................. 135 


Source: SECAmb website-national performance indicators .................................... 136 





Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 137 

Flooding and Flood Defences ..................................................................................... 138 





Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 141 

CHAPTER 14. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES ........................................... 142 

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 142 

Shopping Facilities ..................................................................................................... 142 


ADDLESTONE: ....................................................................................................... 142 

Chertsey: ................................................................................................................. 143 

Egham: .................................................................................................................... 143 

Virginia Water: ......................................................................................................... 143 





Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 146 

Libraries ...................................................................................................................... 147 






Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 151 

Services for Older People (Voluntary Services) ......................................................... 151 






Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 156 

Youth Centres ............................................................................................................. 156 






Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 159 

Places of worship ....................................................................................................... 159 

Existing conditions ................................................................................................... 159





Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 161 

Cemeteries & Crematoriums ...................................................................................... 161 






Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 163 

CHAPTER 15. DELIVERY ................................................................................................ 164 

Governance Arrangements ..................................................................................... 164 

Forging links with partners ...................................................................................... 164 

Development Management and Planning Obligations ............................................ 165 

Infrastructure Schedule ........................................................................................... 165 

Monitoring and Updating the IDP ............................................................................ 165 

CHAPTER 16. DELIVERY PLAN ..................................................................................... 167 

List of Appendices 

Appendix 1 - Infrastructure Schedule..…… …………….……………………………… 169 

Appendix 2 - List of abbreviations………………………………………………………… 201 

Appendix 3 - Glossary of terms…………………………………………………………… 205 

Appendix 4 - SANGS works programme………………………………………………… 207 

List of Tables 

Table 1- RBC Local Plan Policies ........................................................................................................... 17 

Table 2 - Infrastructure Designation ........................................................................................................ 24 

Table 3 - A Steps Approach to Infrastructure Planning ........................................................................... 25 

Table 4 - Location of Potential Residential Units ..................................................................................... 28 

Table 5 - number of pupils that will require a primary school place in Runnymede (2012-2021)............ 36 

Table 6 - number of pupils that will require a secondary school place in Runnymede (2012-2021) ....... 41 

Table 7 - Cars and vans in Runnymede (2001) ...................................................................................... 54 

Table 8 - Runnymede Travel to Work Patterns ....................................................................................... 55 

Table 9-station usage in the Borough 2002-2011 ................................................................................... 63 

Table 10 - Bus Timetable Information ..................................................................................................... 66 

Table 11 - Five Dimensions of Travel Choices ........................................................................................ 70 

Table 12 - Population aged 65 and over in Runnymede, projected to 2030 ........................................... 83 

Table 13 - % Population aged 65 and over in Runnymede, projected to 2030 ....................................... 84 

Table 14-SECAmb response time compared with other parts of country ............................................. 136 

Table 15 - Summary of flood risks in Runnymede ................................................................................ 139 

Table 16-Use figures for the 5 static libraries in Runnymede, (based on 2010-11 figures) .................. 148

Table 17- essential infrastructure forecasted to be required to deliver the development forcasted in the 

Local Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 168 

List of Figures 

Figure 1-Population of Surrey boroughs at the time of the 2001 and 2011 censuses ............................ 18 

Figure 2-Total CO2 emissions for Runnymede in 2007 .......................................................................... 20 

Figure 3 – Tree and Woodland Cover in Runnymede 2004 .................................................................... 21 

Figure 4-Extent of Enterprise M3 Partnership Area ................................................................................ 22 

Figure 5-location of sure start schemes in the Borough .......................................................................... 30 

Figure 7- Primary, Junior and Infant School Locations (excluding private schools) ................................ 34 

Figure 8 - Current Spare Primary & Secondary Places in Runnymede (Nov 2010) ................................ 35 

Figure 9-location of secondary educational facilities in the Borough ...................................................... 40 

Figure 10 - Strategic Road Network – England (Source: HA 2012) ........................................................ 49 

Figure 11 - Runnymede's Strategic Road Network ................................................................................. 50 

Figure 12-Changes in Car per household 1981 - 2001 ........................................................................... 53 

Figure 13 - Car ownership in Runnymede compared with England and the South East ........................ 54 

Figure 14- SHMA Population Age Projections 2006 - 2021 .................................................................... 56 

Figure 16 - Population aged 65 and over in Runnymede, projected to 2030 against % increase total ... 84 

Figure 17 - Location of recycling facilities in the Borough ....................................................................... 97 

Figure 18-European and RAMSAR designated sites with components in or adjacent to the Borough . 101 

Figure 19- National and County designations in the Borough ............................................................... 102 

Figure 20 -natural and semi urban green spaces-300m zones surrounding spaces ............................ 110 

Figure 21-(map 1 of 2) historic and archaeological assets in the Borough ........................................... 123 

Figure 22- (map 2 of 2) historic and archaeological assets in the Borough .......................................... 124 

Figure 23 - Crime hotspots in the Borough ........................................................................................... 129 

Figure 24- location of fire stations across Surrey .................................................................................. 133

Chapter 1. Introduction 

What is the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Infrastructure Schedule 

1.1 The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and its accompanying Infrastructure Schedule 

(IS) form part of the evidence base that supports the production of Runnymede 

Borough Council’s (RBC) Local Plan. The Local Plan responds to the objectives set out 

in the Council’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The IDP provides a detailed 

baseline of existing capacity, expected demand over the plan period, possible sources 

and amounts of funding, and considers potential risks to each type of infrastructure 

over the course of the Local Plan. This IDP and IS have evolved in tandem with the 

Local Plan and set out the best available evidence of what the infrastructure 

requirement within Runnymede will be up to 2026. 

1.2 The IDP and IS provide a snapshot at the time of printing. Over the plan period, the 

landscape will inevitably change in relation to infrastructure provision. Specifically, 

capacities, funding sources and risks such as the effects of climate change will all have 

a potential impact on delivery priorities. It is therefore important that both the IDP and 

its accompanying IS are reviewed on a regular basis following the adoption of the Local 

Plan. 

1.3 The IDP and IS will also assist the Council in prioritising the delivery of infrastructure 

over the plan period as well as identifying gaps in funding that can be contributed to by 

the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). 

The production of Infrastructure Delivery Plan 

1.4 RBC commenced work on a review of infrastructure capacity and future requirements 

as part of the Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Project (SICP) in 2008. The SICP was part 

of the larger ‘Improvement and Efficiency South East’ project designed to examine 

likely effects of the housing, employment and population growth patterns on the current 

public infrastructure provision across Surrey. It was intended that this project would 

identify what and where investments in infrastructure would be required in order to 

match future capacity levels with future demand. 

1.5 The SICP programme was designed to engage all eleven District and Borough 

Councils in Surrey, along with other infrastructure providers, to plan the future 

infrastructure required. The intention was that as the programme progressed, all parties 

would ensure that a collaborative approach was adopted and that opportunities for 

asset rationalisation and the co-location of services were fully scoped. 

1.6 This early work was used to inform early work on the IDP. As work progressed, RBC 

focused on the delivery of infrastructure: 

• within its administrative boundary; 

• in areas adjacent to the Borough; and, 

• which had a direct impact on/association with the Borough. 

1.7 The IDP has been produced by in-house by staff from the Council’s Impact 

Assessment, Development Management, and Planning Policy teams. The team largely 

followed guidance set out in ‘A Steps Approach to Infrastructure Planning and Delivery’ 

published by the Planning Advisory Service. 1 

1.8 Initial stages involved the preparation of the IDP Database. The database provided a 

central point, where information collected on existing and planned infrastructure in the 

Borough could be stored. This initial process culminated with an invite to participate in 

1 

Planning Advisory Service (PAS) (2009). Source: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/109121 

Page | 12 

Runnymede IDP DRAFT – February 2013

a ‘Key Infrastructure Providers Workshop’ (KIPW 2010) to all relevant stakeholders 

including neighbouring authorities. The KIPW 2010 convened on 29 th July 2010. The 

information already stored in the database was reviewed, and Infrastructure Providers 

also provided additional information on infrastructure capacity and demand issues, as 

well as on any programmes of work in the pipe-line that were designed to address 

those needs. 

1.9 Subsequent stages in the project have involved discussions with specific infrastructure 

providers such as Surrey County Council (Transport, Education, and Libraries 

departments in particular), the Environment Agency and utility providers. Internal 

discussions have also taken place with various Council departments who are involved 

in the provision of social and green infrastructure (including the Community Services 

team and the Leisure department). 

1.10 The information obtained from these discussions has informed the contents of this 

current version of the IDP and IS. The IS summarises the projects noted in the IDP but 

additionally considers which of the infrastructure is essential and which is desirable. 

Essential infrastructure in this context represents items without which the development 

forecast in the Local Plan could not come forward. Desirable infrastructure represents 

items which, whilst not vital to unlock growth, will support growth and benefit local 

communities over the plan period. 

Structure of Document 

1.11 The remainder of this report is structured as follows: 

• Chapter 2: Provides the context for infrastructure planning in Runnymede, 

covering areas such as social, economic and environmental characteristics, 

and sets out the main policy context in which the provision of infrastructure 

resides. The chapter describes current and future roles of Runnymede’s Local 

Strategic Partnership (LSP) and Local Economic Partnership (LEP) in 

infrastructure planning and delivery, and then moves on to consider the role 

of the Council’s Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) and Corporate Plan 

(CP). The chapter ends by focusing on the Council’s emerging Local Plan. 

• Chapter 3: Establishes the main infrastructure designations and subdesignations 

in relation to Runnymede. It defines ‘physical’, ‘social’ and 

‘green’ infrastructure and identifies who is currently responsible for delivery – 

the delivery agencies; 

• Chapter 4: Explains the methodology adopted for preparing this IDP and IS 

and the assumptions made in relation to the amount, type and distribution of 

development and population projections; 

• Chapter 5: Considers the amount and distribution of planned residential and 

commercial development over the plan period; 

• Chapters 6 to 15: Within these chapters, infrastructure designations are 

systematically assessed and appraised against the demand identified in 

Chapter 5. Commencing with a brief introduction, each chapter draws 

together and considers the following: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Existing conditions; 

Future provision; 

Local Plan implications; 

Costs and funding sources; 

Risk assessment; and, 

Page | 13 


o 

Conclusion. 

1.12 The report is supported by a number of appendices, the contents of which are 

summarised in the contents pages of this report. 

Consultation to Date 

1.13 Council officers have engaged with key delivery agencies in the development of its 

SCS and Local Plan (see Council’s statement of consultation for further information) 

and the accompanying appraisal and assessments of both those documents. The 

KIPW 2010 initiated a series of specific consultations on the emerging IDP and IS. This 

whole process involved correspondence, workshops, and meetings. 

1.14 The Council followed up its KIPW 2010, by convening its MLF 2010 on 23 rd November 

2010. This forum had the sole intention of facilitating conversations between major 

landowners who could potentially bring forward co-located development proposals that 

could have an impact on infrastructure capacity. 

Page | 14 


Chapter 2. Context 

Policy Context 

National 

2.1 Relevant guidance issued by Government on the provision of infrastructure is 

contained within three documents: 

National Planning Policy Framework (2012): 

• Para 21: States that planning policies should recognise and seek to address 

potential barriers to investment – poor environment, lack of infrastructure, 

services or housing; 

• Chapter 5: Supports high quality communications infrastructure; 

• Para 97: Urges LPAs to consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and 

low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would 

help secure the development of such sources; 

• Para 114: States that LPAs should set out a strategic approach in their Local 

Plans, planning positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and 

management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure; 

• Para 143: States that in preparing Local Plans, LPAs should seek to 

safeguard existing, planned and potential mineral handling infrastructure; 

existing, planned and potential mineral processing and recycling 

infrastructure; 

• Para 153: Notes that Local Plans can be reviewed in whole or in part to 

respond flexibly to changing circumstances. States that supplementary 

planning documents should be used where they can help applicants make 

successful applications or aid infrastructure delivery, and should not be used 

to add unnecessarily to the financial burdens on development; 

• Para 157: States that Local Plans should plan positively for the development 

and infrastructure required in its area to meet the objectives, principles and 

policies of the NPPF; 

• Para 162: States that Local Planning Authorities should work with other 

authorities and providers to 1) assess the quality and capacity of 

infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, 

energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social 

care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to 

meet forecast demands; and 2) take account of the need for strategic 

infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas. 

• Para 177: States that Infrastructure and development policies should be 

prepared alongside affordable housing or local standards requirements; 

• Para 179: states that LPAs should work collaboratively with other bodies to 

ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries are properly 

coordinated and clearly reflected in individual Local Plans. As part of this 

process, it is stated that LPAs should consider producing joint planning 

policies on strategic matters and informal strategies such as joint 

infrastructure and investment plans; 

• Para 180: States that LPAs should work collaboratively on strategic planning 

priorities to enable delivery of sustainable development in consultation with 

Local Enterprise Partnerships and Local Nature Partnerships. Also states that 

Page | 15 


LPAs should work collaboratively with private sector bodies, utility and 

infrastructure providers. 

CIL Guidance: Charge setting and charging schedule procedures (2010): 

• Para. 14: states that in determining the size of its total or aggregate 

infrastructure funding gap, the charging authority should consider known and 

expected infrastructure costs and the other sources of funding available, or 

likely to be available, to meet those costs. This process will identify a CIL 

infrastructure funding target. This target may be informed by a selection of 

infrastructure projects or types (drawn from infrastructure planning for the 

area) which are indicative of the infrastructure likely to be funded by CIL in 

that area. The Government recognises that there will be uncertainty in 

pinpointing other infrastructure funding sources, particularly beyond the shortterm. 

It is therefore stated that the focus should be on providing evidence of 

an aggregate funding gap that demonstrates the need to levy CIL. 

PPS 12 Local Spatial Planning (2008): (now revoked and replaced by the National 

Planning Policy Framework in 2012) 

Emerging Local Plan 

• Para. 4.9: stated that the infrastructure planning process should identify, as 

far as possible: infrastructure needs and costs; phasing of development; 

funding sources; and responsibilities for delivery; 

2.2 The Localism agenda pushes responsibility for infrastructure delivery towards the Local 

Authority. The abolition of South East England Development Agency (SEEDA), and its 

replacement with LEPs has led to a refocus on the delivery of strategic infrastructure to 

unlock economic growth. Runnymede is now within the Enterprise M3 LEP which 

covers 14 districts over Surrey and Hampshire (see Figure 4). 

2.3 The delivery of the Local Plan must now be co-ordinated with other local, county and 

sub-regional strategies, such as Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership: Business 

Plan 2012 2 , the Surrey Local Transport Plan (2011-2026) 3 , the Local Investment Plan 

(2011-2015) and the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment for Surrey. 

2.4 The Localism agenda requires on-going collaborative discussions with partner 

authorities and organisations to fulfil the Council’s ‘Duty to Cooperate’, and to enhance 

delivery of instrastructure through the Surrey Joint Committee, the Surrey Planning 

Officers Forum, and the LEP. 

2.5 Within this context, the Council is in the process of producing its Local Plan which sets 

out the principles and policy direction which will guide development in Runnymede up 

to 2026. It is considered reasonable to assume that growth (in the number of residential 

units and commercial floor space in particular) over the plan period will place increased 

levels of demand upon the Borough’s infrastructure. 

2.6 Currently the target for housing delivery is to provide a minimum of 161 units per 

annum between 2011 and 2026. The Council intends to focus any windfall commercial 

and/or residential growth within existing Urban Areas. 

2.7 The Local Plan contains a cross section of 18 policies comprising of 8 ‘Location 

Policies’ (LP01 – LP08) and 10 ‘Strategic Policies’ (SP01 – SP10), as detailed in Table 

1 below. These policies are intended to meet the objectives of the plan taking account 

of the context within which the plan sits. They are designed to reflect key broad 

considerations that directly relate to development in Runnymede, and with the 

2 

Source: http://www.enterprisem3.org.uk/uploads/be578fa52d7672f654273a7c2588aa8f5ce9131c.pdf 

3 

Source: http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/surrey-transport-plan-ltp3 

Page | 16 


exception of the one policy (LP08), generally promote development within the existing 

Urban Areas of Addlestone, Chertsey, Egham/Englefield Green. It also continues to 

promote the continued protection of the Green Belt along with the maintenance and 

enhancement of the Borough’s employment base. Also, it sets a level of 25% for 

affordable housing on qualifying sites. 

Table 1- RBC Local Plan Policies 

No. 

Policy 

Location Policies 

LP01 Strategy for the Location of Development 

LP02 Housing Provision and Distribution 

LP03 Development in Addlestone Urban Area 

LP04 Development in Egham / Englefield Green Urban Area 

LP05 Royal Holloway UOL 

LP06 Development in Chertsey Urban Area 

LP07 Development in Virginia Water 

LP08 The former DERA site, Longcross 

Strategic Policies 

SP01 

SP02 

SP03 

SP04 

SP05 

SP06 

SP07 

SP08 

SP09 

SP10 

Green Belt Areas 

Affordable Housing 

Gypsy and Travelling Populations 

Provision and Retention of Infrastructure and Service 

Design 

Tourism, Recreation and Leisure 

Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area 

Employment Development 

Sustainable Transport 

Development and Flood Risk 

2.8 In terms of housing numbers, the Local Plan is not proposing to allocate any strategic 

sites with the exception of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) site 

at Longcross. Indeed the view has been taken that the current rate of housing 

completions coupled with the existing level of approved schemes adequately meets its 

proposed quantum of 161 units per annum. 

2.9 Being a key site with considerably less infrastructure provision than the existing Urban 

Area, the 123 hectare former DERA site is expected to require considerable 

infrastructure provision if it comes forward, as expected, to provide a new mixed use 

community. Originally a Ministry of Defence (MoD) research establishment for testing 

military vehicles, the site was decommissioned in 2001. 

2.10 All policies along with their alternatives have been assessed in terms to their 

contribution towards meeting the objectives of sustainable development along with their 

impact on the environment through a combined Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and 

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) which are available to view on the 

Council’s Planning website. 

Page | 17 


Runnymede Borough Councils Sustainable Community Strategy (2012) 

2.11 The Council’s SCS has directed that the Local Plan brings forward policies that provide 

for the regeneration of Addlestone, Chertsey, Egham, Virginia Water, and the 

development of the former DERA site. In terms of the redevelopment of the former 

DERA site, it states that the site provides a unique opportunity to provide a mixed use 

community with: 

Spatial Context 

• headquarter development for a global high-tech enterprise; 

• a new sustainable ‘village’ with homes of varying size and tenure which meet 

the housing needs of the Borough; and, 

• modern sustainable infrastructure as well as a site of major employment 

opportunity. 

2.12 Runnymede is located in north-west Surrey, some twenty miles south-west of Central 

London in the South East Region. Covering an area of some 7804 hectares, its 

northern and eastern boundaries are formed by the River Thames and River Wey. 

Three bridges at various points across the Thames and two motorway bridges connect 

the Borough to Staines, Chertsey, and Weybridge. Nearby towns in adjoining Boroughs 

include Staines, Weybridge, Windsor, Woking, and Camberley. 

2.13 The west of the Borough is mainly rural in character whilst the main urban centres of 

Egham, Chertsey, and Addlestone are situated in its eastern half. There are also a 

number of smaller settlements including Virginia Water, Woodham, New Haw, 

Ottershaw, Row Town, and Englefield Green. Runnymede is situated within the London 

Green Belt, and Green Belt covers about 78% of the total area. 

Population 

2.14 Between 1991 and 2001 there was a population growth rate of 5% in the Borough, 

mainly due to net inward migration rather than natural increase. At the time of the 2001 

Census, there were 31,686 households in the Borough, accommodating a population of 

78,033. 

2.15 Surrey's population (and Runnymede’s as a Borough) is projected to continue to rise, 

with notable increases in the number of older people. Specifically, the 2010 National 

Population projections (Office for National Statistics) estimate that the population of 

Runnymede will reach some 98,000 people by the end of the plan period. 

Figure 1-Population of Surrey boroughs at the time of the 2001 and 2011 censuses 

Page | 18 


Economy 

2.16 The local economy, in common with the rest of Surrey, is dominated by the service 

sector, which employs some 83% of the workforce, whilst manufacturing accounts for 

just 5%. Businesses and institutions in the Borough include: St Peters Hospital & NHS 

Trusts, Royal Holloway (University of London), The Veterinary Laboratory Agency, 

Thorpe Park, Procter and Gamble, Centrica, BUPA, Gartner UK, Samsung Electronics, 

Tesco Stores and Automatic Data Processing. 

Retail 

2.17 In recent years there has been considerable redevelopment and intensification of 

Runnymede’s mainly low rise, lower density housing, together with development and 

redevelopment of commercial premises in town centres and business areas. House 

building in Runnymede has exceeded Surrey Structure Plan (2004) and South East 

Plan (2009) targets with an annual average of 273 additional dwellings being built over 

the past seven years. House prices are on average higher than in the rest of the South 

East and reflect prices in London. The availability of affordable housing to meet local 

needs remains a key issue in the Borough, as identified in the Council’s Strategic 

Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (2008). 

2.18 According to the Council’s Retail Study 2009, ‘income growth has also led to increased 

car ownership and personal mobility’. Going on to cite that ‘over the last 25 years, the 

number of households having access to one or more cars has increased from about 

55% to about 75% nationally and the number with two or more cars has nearly trebled 

from 11% to 30%’. The Census 2001 figures on car ownership show that the numbers 

of households in the Borough with 1 or more cars or vans is 84.8%. 

Environment 

2.19 Air quality within the Borough is currently within acceptable levels in most areas, but 

the Council did designate a third Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in 2009. 

Emissions of greenhouse gases continue to be of concern. The prediction is that the 

greatest producer of these gases (road transport) will continue to increase, and that the 

lifestyle choices made by residents will demand greater energy consumption. 

2.20 Local amenity can be considered in terms of noise, dust and light, and access to 

recreation and countryside. Other aspects which could be considered as factors in local 

amenity include countryside character, historic buildings and features, traffic volume 

and the environment. Background ambient noise levels have yet to be calculated for 

the Borough. Surrey County Council’s Local Transport Plan of July 2000 estimated 

however that 14% of the population was subjected to excessive road traffic noise. Road 

traffic noise was raised as an issue again in Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2) published 

March 2006, and again in LTP3 (April 2011). 

2.21 There are both challenges to be faced and opportunities to embrace as the effects of 

climate change progressively accelerate. In 2007, the combined CO2 emissions for the 

Borough were an estimated 808 kt, of which 49 % was attributed to road transport – 

(see Figure 2 below). 

Page | 19 


Figure 2-Total CO2 emissions for Runnymede in 2007 

Flooding and water 

2.22 Flooding is of major concern in the Borough. According to the latest Strategic Flood 

Risk Assessment (SFRA) (published 2009), 63% of residential properties in the 

Borough are at some form of flood risk. Currently, the combined number of residential 

and commercial properties in Runnymede at risk of flooding is 21,603. 

2.23 Water consumption is estimated to be at a rate of 163 litres per person per day with 

little or no stress on the capacity of the water system. The Council is unaware of any 

major concerns regarding the groundwater protection zone within the Borough at this 

time. River quality is also acceptable, with the majority of rivers within the Borough 

being rated as good or very good quality (Environment Agency - 2009 river quality 

data). 

2.24 The same cannot be said for levels of nitrates in the Borough’s rivers. Specifically, river 

sites sampled in Runnymede by the Environment Agency are generally in the grade 

range of 4-6 (moderate – very high) and phosphates are generally in the grade range of 

4-5 (high – very high). Sources of nutrients in the Thames and Way catchments include 

effluent from sewage treatment works and agriculture (for more information on water 

resources see Section 8 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report 2012). 

Biodiversity 

2.25 Runnymede is host to a number of National, European and Internationally designated 

sites that are afforded legal protection. This enhances Runnymede’s value in terms of 

habitat and biodiversity. The Borough is also adjacent to sensitive sites such as 

Chobham Common Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is a component of 

Thames Basin Heaths Special Protected Area and Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and 

Chobham Special Area of Conservation. In 2004, 2% of the land in Runnymede was 

designated as SSSIs. This has remained constant. Data compiled in June 2004 by 

English Nature (now Natural England) suggests that 16.4% of Runnymede’s SSSIs are 

in favourable condition, which means that there is considerable scope for improvement. 

Page | 20 


There are reported to be in excess of 2100 different species in the Borough; 32 of them 

are Biodiversity Action Plan species. These are supported in 19 different habitats 4 . 

2.26 Around 2,254.4ha or 28.9% of the Borough is covered by trees and woodland, which 

contributes to its character (see: 

2.27 Figure 3 below). The natural landscape of Runnymede is characterised by its Thames 

Basin Lowland and urban fringe location which is of gently undulating vale: small-scale 

fields interspersed with woods, ponds, meadows, and heath, with a rural appearance. 

Social Deprivation 

2.28 The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is a measure of multiple deprivation at Super 

Output Area (SOA) level. SOAs comprise a population of between 1000 and 3000 

people. There are 32,482 SOAs in England & Wales, 709 of them in Surrey; and 51 in 

Runnymede, with each ward containing three or four SOAs within it. The IMD combines 

a number of indicators, chosen to cover a range of economic, social, and housing 

issues, into a single deprivation score for each small area in England. 

2.29 There are also six district summary scores for each Local Authority district (there are 

354 districts in England) and for each County Council and higher tier (there are 149 of 

these). A relative ranking of areas, according to their level of deprivation is then 

provided. Although some areas of the Borough perform worse than others, no area 

within Runnymede registers within the 20% most deprived areas of the country. 

Figure 3 – Tree and Woodland Cover in Runnymede 2004 

4 

Para. 13.1 State of Runnymede Report, 2004 

Page | 21 


Groups and Partnerships 

Local Economic Partnerships (LEP) 

2.30 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) are the Government’s replacements for Regional 

Development Agencies (RDAs). The LEPs role is intended to provide strategic 

leadership in their areas to set out local economic priorities. The Government expects 

LEPs to create the right environment for business and growth by tackling issues such 

as planning and housing, local transport and infrastructure priorities, employment and 

enterprise, and the transition to the low carbon economy. 

2.31 Runnymede is located within the Enterprise M3 LEP (see Figure 4 below). Nationally, 

the LEPs will have access to the £2.4bn Regional Growth Fund. Currently the 

Enterprise M3 is in the process of awarding £21.7 million to develop its Growing 

Enterprise Fund scheme. 

Figure 4-Extent of Enterprise M3 Partnership Area 

Infrastructure and its Delivery Agencies 

Infrastructure 

2.32 The Government published its “National Infrastructure Plan 2011” 5 in November 2011. 

In doing so, it continues to emphasise the link between economic infrastructure 

(energy, water, transport, digital communications, and waste disposal) and economic 

growth and the improvement in the quality of life of everyone in the UK that this will 

achieve. 

2.33 PPS12 used the terms ‘physical’, ‘social’ and ‘green’ infrastructure. Section 216 of the 

Town and Country Planning Act 2008 makes it clear that funds secured in the future by 

CIL must be used for infrastructure purposes. In doing so it defines ‘infrastructure’ as 

including (but not limited to) the following: 

• Roads and other transport facilities; 

• Flood defences; 

5 

National Infrastructure Plan 2011 (Nov 2011) http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/national_infrastructure_plan291111.pdf 

Page | 22 


• Schools and other educational facilities; 

• Medical facilities; 

• Sporting and recreational facilities; 

• Open spaces; and 

• Affordable housing. 

2.34 For the purpose of this report, the term ‘infrastructure’ has been taken as relating to 

tangible facilities and the physical provision that is needed to enable publicly funded 

services to be provided (e.g. roads, railway tracks, pipes/cables, buildings and open 

spaces). This meaning is expanded to incorporate both the social and green 

infrastructure that communities need. 

2.35 According to the British Property Federation (BPF), ‘social infrastructure provision is 

integral to the creation of sustainable communities’ and includes: 

• health and social care: primary care, health centres, doctors/GP surgeries, 

hospitals and tertiary care 

• education: nursery/pre-school, primary, secondary, further and higher 

education, adult training 

• leisure and pleasure: parks, allotments, open space, play areas, sports 

centres 

• commercial infrastructure such as shops, cinemas, pubs and cafes 

• emergency services: police, fire, ambulance 

• other community and cultural infrastructure: libraries, community halls, youth 

clubs, arts projects, community development 6 . 

2.36 Green infrastructure as defined in the now revoked PPG 17 (Planning for Open 

Spaces) included a number of open space typologies to allow for a consistent basis for 

local authorities to assess local wants and needs. These typologies, which were 

adopted for Runnymede Borough Council’s Open Space Review, are also adopted in 

the IDP and contribute towards Green Infrastructure. The National Planning Policy 

Framework (NPPF) defines green infrastructure as, ‘A network of multi-functional green 

space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental 

and quality of life benefits for local communities’. 

2.37 It goes on to state that Local Planning Authorities in the production of their Local Plans, 

should plan …’positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of 

networks of biodiversity and green spaces’. 

2.38 Clearly, any number of methods could have been used to determine the designations 

of relevant infrastructure for inclusion within this document. Based however on an 

Officer review of priorities, the infrastructure designations and sub-designations as set 

out in Table 2 below were set. 

Delivery Agencies 

2.39 The NPPF highlights the need to work with other authorities and providers in 

connection with the provision of infrastructure. The KIPW 2010 was used as a starting 

point in identifying the relevant agencies for Runnymede. This list has been refined and 

expanded to cover specific Council functions, partners and other relevant public and 

private sector agencies. It also includes the Runnymede Association of Voluntary 

6 

‘Planning for social infrastructure in development projects. A guide to tackling the key challenges’ British Property Federation, 

April 2010. 

Page | 23 


Services (RAVS), which is the coordinating organisation for Voluntary Services in 

Runnymede. 

Table 2 - Infrastructure Designation 

Primary 

Designation Sub-designation Key Provider/Partner 

Education Pre-school SCC 

Primary Schools 

SCC 

Secondary Schools 

SCC 

Higher Education 

Royal Holloway University of London 

Further Education 

Strodes College 

Adult Learning 

Various 

Transport Strategic Highways Network Highways Agency 

Non-Strategic Road Network SCC 

Rail Services 

Various 

Bus Services 

SCC & Various 

Walking/Cycling 

SCC 

Community Transport 

RBC & Various 

Parking 

RBC 

Healthcare Primary Healthcare NHS Surrey, Surrey Community Health 

Secondary Healthcare 

ASBH and SABP 

Private Healthcare, Nursing & Various 

Residential Care 

Utilities Gas Various 

Electricity 

EDF and Southern Electric 

Mobile Communications Various 

Drinking Water Supply 

Affinity Water 

Waste Water Treatment Thames Water 

Waste Waste Recycling SCC and RBC 

Green and Designated Nature Sites Natural England (NE) & Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) 

Open Space Green Infrastructure 

RBC 

Amenity & Recreational 

RBC 

Facilities 

Culture and Historic & Archaeological Assets SCC and RBC 

Heritage Museums, Theatres, Cinemas RBC at present 

etc 

Emergency Police 

Surrey Police 

Services Fire & Rescue 

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service 

Ambulance 

South East Coast Ambulance Service 

Flooding & Flood Defences Environment Agency 

Community Shopping Facilities 

Various 

Services & Libraries 

SCC 

Facilities Voluntary Services 

Various 

Youth Centres 

SCC 

Places of Worship 

Various 

Cemeteries & Crematorium RBC and Others 

Page | 24 


Chapter 3. Methodology 

Overall Approach 

3.1 The overall approach to infrastructure planning in Runnymede has been guided and 

informed by the Surrey Improvement Partnership Surrey Infrastructure Capacity 

Project 7 . It has also been influenced by the former PPS12 and good practice guidance, 

including ‘A Steps Approach to Infrastructure Planning and Delivery’ (June 2009), 

published by the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) 8 . The seven steps included in this 

guidance are set out in Table 3 below, together with commentary on how infrastructure 

planning in Runnymede is taking account of the guidance. 

Table 3 - A Steps Approach to Infrastructure Planning 

Step 

Commentary: The Runnymede Approach 

Step 1: 

Vision/Policy Context 

1.1 Set out the long-term vision for the 

area. 

1.2 Establish a sustainable community 

strategy delivery strategy. 

Step 2: 

Governance 

2.1 Set up a group for infrastructure and 

asset management / establish working 

arrangements and engagement between 

stakeholders. 

• Overarching vision being established in emerging 

Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS). 

• Spatial planning strategy is emerging as part of Local 


• Local Plan acts as a Delivery Plan. 

• Key Infrastructure Providers Workshop (KIPW 2010) 

acts as spring board for RBC engaging with broad range 

of delivery agencies. 

• Re-tasked LSP to be focused on infrastructure provision 

and delivery following KIP Workshop 

Step 3: 

Evidence Gathering 

3.1 Undertake a resource overview. 

3.2 Identify existing public sector capital 

programme commitments and private 

sector developments. 

3.3 Identify existing public service delivery 

outlets and potential for joint use. 

3.4 Use public sector assets as resources 

base for local area regeneration and 

redevelopment. 

• A resource overview is being developed by way of a 

number of studies that form part of the evidence base for 

the Local Plan (for example the SAR, Strategic Housing 

Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), Local Climate 

Impact Profile (LCLIP), and former PPG17 Assessments) 

(local assessment still required). 

• Public sector capital programmes are identified in 

consultation with delivery agencies and reported in the 

IS. 

• Future private residential investment identified in 

Housing Trajectory as presented in the Annual 

Monitoring Review (AMR). 

Climate Change Risk Assessment 

3.2 The Climate Change Act 2008 9 provides a legally binding framework for the UK to cut 

carbon emissions and improve its ability to adapt to climate change. It also requires the 

Secretary of State to report to Parliament every 5 years on the assessment of risk 

posed to the UK by the impacts of climate change. The “UK Climate Change Risk 

7 

See: http://www.surreyimprovement.info/sicp 

8 

A Steps Approach to Infrastructure Planning and Delivery (June 2009), Planning Advisory Service 

http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/109121 

9 

The Climate Change Act 2008. Available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080027_en_1 

Page | 25 


Assessment” (CCRA) is intended to bring together the evidence on the consequences 

of climate change across UK Sectors and Regions to inform the development of a 

National Adaptation Programme. 

3.3 Following the recent change in Government, and the suspension of National Indicator 

188, work in terms of Runnymede’s climate change adaptation has been suspended 

pending further clarification of what involvement the Government want Local Authorities 

to have. 

3.4 In May 2010 however, Officers concluded a draft of the Council’s Local Climate 

Impacts Profile (LCLIP) in response to a reporting requirement under National Indicator 

188 (NI188). The LCLIP incorporates the findings from the Surrey LCLIP that was 

carried out between June and September 2009 and includes specific findings relevant 

to Runnymede. The aim was to provide an overview of extreme weather events over 

the previous 10 years in Runnymede and assess the implications on delivery of Council 

services, and the effects on infrastructure capacity. This profile was intended to inform 

a more comprehensive risk assessment. 

Delivery Periods 

3.5 The emerging Local Plan is setting out how new development will be planned for and 

managed up to 2026 (13 years from the expected adoption of the Local Plan in 2013). 

For the purposes of infrastructure planning, forecasts for development have been 

divided into two five-year development periods and one three year period, based on 

financial years (April to April) as set out below. 

• Period 1 (2013/14 to 2017/18); 

• Period 2 (2018/19 to 2022/23); and 

• Period 3 (2023/24 to 2025/26). 

3.6 Proposals by delivery agencies for new facilities in Period 1 are likely to be relatively 

certain as they will be based on existing and emerging strategies, delivery plans, and 

capital programmes. The degree of certainty over the delivery of new or improved 

facilities is however likely to decrease and level of risk increase over time. This is one 

reason why the IDP should be viewed as a ‘living document’ and monitored and 

updated as necessary. 

Page | 26 


Chapter 4. Amount and Distribution of Development 

Local Plan 

4.1 The Local Plan requires a minimum of 161 units to be delivered in the Borough per 

annum (LP02) between 2011 and 2026. This equates to 2,415 units in total, of which 

1,500 units will be located at the former DERA site (LP08). The remainder will be 

formed by a number of extant permissions, delivery of ‘windfall’ sites (sites with a net 

increase below 10 units) and development on other developable, available sites (as 

assessed from within the SHLAA). In terms of general provision, the Local Plan 

promotes a policy that focuses any windfall commercial and/or residential growth within 

existing Urban Areas (LP01). 

4.2 In terms of commercial development, the Local Plan is promoting the retention of all 

existing commercial space with the additional provision of some 80,000 m2 

development at the former DERA site (SP08, LP08). 

4.3 With the exception of DERA, and a specific policy for Royal Holloway University of 

London (LP05) that will facilitate some on site development the plan largely promotes a 

continuation of the existing development forms and patterns. 

Potential Regeneration, Growth Areas, and Strategic Sites 

4.4 For the IDP to be effective, it needs to assess not only the planned development but 

also development that could possibly come forward during the infrastructure delivery 

periods. Inevitably this includes all unimplemented planning permissions irrespective of 

quantum, as well as other available sites, notwithstanding that some of those sites may 

be considered inappropriate for development based on current policies and and/or 

constraints. An analysis of the data used to support the Traffic Impact Assessment 

(TIA) and Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) (2012) concludes that over the plan 

period 2011 – 2026, a total of 4,512 new residential units could be provided in the 

Borough if all available land, irrespective of the suitability discussed above, was 

brought forward for development over the plan period. To enable an assessment of the 

possible maximum infrastructure need associated with such a level of development, 

general locations for development are set out in Table 4 . These located have been 

derived from the land availability data which informed the Traffic Impact Assessment. 

Allocations to delivery periods are based on a 29%, 23%, 48% split to reflect the 

anticipated market intention of land owners, including the anticipated delivery of the 

former DERA site (as described within the SHLAA 2012). 

4.5 In addition to the comprehensive redevelopment of DERA, the Councils SCS (2012) 

promotes the ‘revitalisation’ of the three town centres in the Borough – Addlestone, 

Egham, and Chertsey. 

Page | 27 


Table 4 - Location of Potential Residential Units 

Location 

Maximum 

Period 1 

Period 2 

Period 3 

potential 

(2013/14 

(2018/19 

(2023/24 

Number of 

to 

to 

to 

Residential 

2017/18) 

2022/23) 

2025/26) 

Units 

DERA 1,500 - 200 1300 

Chertsey 1,013 294 233 486 

Addlestone 969 281 223 465 

Egham & Englefield 

Green 

700 203 161 336 

Virginia Water 104 30 24 50 

Other 226 66 52 108 

TOTAL 4,512 874 893 2745 

Page | 28 


Chapter 5. Education 

Introduction 

5.1 This chapter analyses the Borough’s existing provision of education and capacity, and 

discusses factors which impact on this type of infrastructure such as increased birth 

rates and housing development. Likely future provision over the plan period is also 

discussed. 

5.2 Education infrastructure is sub-divided into a number of components ranging from Preschool 

through to Higher Education. Each component is considered in turn. 

5.3 The capacity of the public education infrastructure is affected by a number of factors 

that change across the education delivery points. Early years and pre-school appears 

more sensitive to local housing provision and increased birth rates, than higher 

education for example. In addition, families moving to an area to send their children to 

a high achieving school with a good reputation can affect demand. This effect reduces 

considerably as students’ progress through the education system. 

5.4 Across Surrey, birth rates have increased since the millennium. An increase in births 

has caused an increase in the number of 4 year olds requiring school places in Surrey, 

putting pressure on educational infrastructure in the County. 

5.5 In Runnymede, from the 2001 low point, births increased by an average of 162 per 

annum up to 2008. This is an increase of 20%. Births are projected to continue to 

increase based on Office for National Statistics (ONS) population estimates and 

projected fertility rates. 

5.6 The link between poverty and poor educational outcomes is very complex but in the 

main is accepted 10 . The ‘Family in Poverty Needs Assessment’, Feb 2011 states there 

are 1,640 children and young people living in poverty in Runnymede. This is 11.2% of 

all 0-19s in the Borough, higher than the countrywide proportion. Egham Hythe and 

Englefield Green West have the highest numbers of children and young people living in 

poverty at ward level. 

5.7 Evidence of family poverty in the Borough indicates that partner agencies should 

continue to ensure that there are sufficient pre-school childcare arrangements available 

for parents who require this support to be able to work. 

Pre-school Childcare (Early Years Provision) and Children’s Centres 

Existing Provision 

5.8 As well as the provision of school places, SCC has a duty to ensure that there are 

sufficient Early Years (EY) places for all 3 and 4 year old children across Surrey. In 

practice, many 4 year olds attend schools, so the majority of EY places are for 3-yearold 

children. SCC does not have a duty to be the provider of these EY places. There 

are some maintained nursery schools in the Borough and some primary schools have 

maintained nurseries attached to them. There are also a number of Children’s Centres 

established across Surrey. The majority of EY settings are run by private providers. 

There should be sufficient infrastructure to provide sufficient places for all 3 year olds in 

Surrey. 

5.9 There are currently 4 Sure Start Children’s Centres in the Borough which are located in 

the following locations: 

• Chertsey Children's Centre, Pyrcroft Road, Chertsey 

• Sayes Court Children's Centre at Sayes Court School in Addlestone 

10 

See: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/review-research-links-between-education-and-poverty 

Page | 29 


• The Haven Sure Start Children's Centres at Hythe Primary School, Egham 

Hythe and at St Jude’s Junior School, Englefield Green 

• The Poplars Sure Start Children's Centre in the grounds of The Grange 

Community Infant and New Haw Community Junior Schools, Queen Marys 

Drive, New Haw 

Figure 5-location of sure start schemes in the Borough 

5.10 The aim of the Sure Start Children’s Centres is to support children under five and their 

families, particularly within disadvantaged areas. Parents can access a range of 

services in one place although provision may vary between centres as they aim to 

provide services that are tailored to their communities’ needs. It is an integrated 

approach, encouraging the delivery of childcare alongside early education and other 

health and family services. The Government advises local authorities that they will 

need to ensure that diversity of provision is maintained to ensure a good choice for 

parents, often brokering partnerships between schools and the private and voluntary 

sectors. 

Page | 30 


5.11 SCC 11 has indicated that the total number of private, voluntary and independent (PVI) 

childcare places in Runnymede is 516 for pre-school children aged less than two years, 

and 1,630 for pre-school children aged 0 to 4 years (inclusive). In Surrey, over 30% of 

pre-school Childcare (Early Years Provision) and Children’s Centres provision is 

through the private, voluntary or independent sectors, for example through 

childminders, day nurseries, playgroups and independent schools. 


5.12 Runnymede Borough Council has provided SCC with their expected housing 

projections over the plan period, in particular providing SCC officers with the minimum 

(2415) and maximum estimations (4512). SCC has been advised that the 4512 upper 

end figure is an estimated maximum figure which is, in reality unlikely to be delivered 

over the plan period. As such SCC has based their forecasts on a mid-point figure in 

this range and has assumed that the number of new dwellings where pupils would be 

yielded between 2013 to 2025 would be in the region of 3284. 

5.13 SCC has historically excluded 1-bed properties from calculations of this nature because 

of the negligible pupil yield from these property types. Whilst this position is under 

review, for the time being, 1 bedroom properties will be excluded from the calculations 

in the IDP. SCC has calculated on the basis of information provided by RBC, that in the 

Borough, some 97% of dwellings in the trajectory will be 2+ bedroom units and 

therefore 3% of the expected housing numbers should be excluded from the 

calculation. This means that the total number of additional dwellings where pupils are 

expected to be yielded over the plan period would be in the region of 3185. 

5.14 New housing developments over the plan period are likely to correlate with an increase 

in EY children. The effects of a development can be assessed through calculating the 

number of children that would be yielded by a proposed development. The 

methodology for estimated developer contributions is the same as for primary and 

secondary places. The average pupil yield is published in the Surrey Education 

Formula. The average pupil yield of EY children is 2/7 that of the average primary yield 

– 2/7 x 0.25 = 0.07. Excluding 1-bed properties, the total number of EY children likely to 

be yielded by development during the period 2013 to 2025 is 3185 x 0.07 = 223. 

5.15 It is considered reasonable to assume that the majority of the increased population 

over the plan period will be concentrated at the former DERA site (where 1500 

dwellings are proposed) and in the Borough’s Urban Areas. This is supported by the 

location of development policies in the Local Plan (LP01 LP02 and LP08). Major new 

developments such as DERA generally make provision for childcare. Indeed, at the 

former DERA site, a private children’s nursery with a floor area of up to 600sqm was 

proposed as part of the outline approval under RU.05/0538 for the northern part of this 

site. It is reasonable to assume that such provision is likely to be included in any 

subsequent proposals going forward at the site, not least because a similar use has 

been included in the latest application for the Northern part of the site. 

5.16 Strategic policy SP09 is also considered relevant in this case. This policy encourages 

people to use sustainable modes of transport wherever possible to access facilities. 

Future provision 

5.17 It is clear that if there is an increasing number of 4 year olds owing to increased births, 

then there is a commensurate increase in 3 year olds the previous year. Therefore, 

proposed developments will yield EY children, and the effect of these children should 

be mitigated if the development is to be permitted. 

11 

Information from SCC Audit of Childcare and Early Education Provision2010. 

Page | 31 


5.18 As noted in the Local Plan section above, it is estimated that an additional 223 EY 

places will be generated by the additional residential units which are estimated to come 

forward between 2013 and 2025 (just one year short of the end of the plan period). 

5.19 It remains Surrey County Council’s policy however that the majority of any new 

provision will be delivered through the private sectors, with the County Council offering 

business advice, providing businesses with evidence of need, and offering training and 

start up support, as required. SCC has advised however that where additional EY 

places are required in an area, the SCC Early Years Service will identify a suitable 

location for this infrastructure and invite bids from prospective providers to run these 

new settings. 

Costs and funding sources 

5.20 The only known planned additional facility is at the former DERA site. In the application 

which was previously granted for the redevelopment of the site (RU.05/0538), this 

facility was to be initially funded by the developer. The total cost of providing the facility 

was not specified. It is anticipated that a private pre school facility will be provided as 

part of any future development at the site. 

5.21 The cost of providing additional infrastructure for EY settings can be derived from the 

historic costs in Surrey of doing so. An EY setting is not as complex as a school, and 

so the cost of provision of a place for one child at an EY setting is less than the 

proportionate cost of a primary school place. The cost of provision of an EY place in Q3 

2011 was estimated to be £10,019. 

5.22 Developer contributions for EY provision over the period 2013-2025 is therefore 

estimated in the following way: 223 x £10,019 = £2,234,237. 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF001 

Risk Assessment 

Description 

Pre school facility at the former 

DERA site 

Estimated 

Cost 

Unknown 

Key 

Provider(s) 

Developer 

5.23 The main risk in this case is a rapid increase in demand for places that exceeds 

affordable supply for pre school provision and/or a considerable underestimation of the 

projected population. This could result in parents being forced to seek childcare 

provision outside the Borough, or having to stay at home to care for their children 

themselves. This would have a cumulative knock on effect for the local economy. 

5.24 The probability is considered to be low as the birth rates of the Borough are increasing 

at a relatively constant rate thus giving providers some certainty as to the provision that 

will be required to meet demand. The severity is also considered to be low, as the 

effect would be localised to a particular student cohort. However, improving the 

population projections and increasing monitoring will assist in the management of these 

risks. 

Conclusion 

Risk ID Description Probability Severity 

IDPR001 

Unaccounted rapid increase in demand 

for places 

5.25 Overall there is a projected requirement for 223 additional places over the plan period. 

Given that pre school childcare facilities are provided by the market, it is considered 

that this will assist in mitigating against the increased number of EY children up to 

2026. As noted, it is likely that a private nursery will be provided at the former DERA 

site where the largest concentration of new housing will come forward over the plan 

Low 

Low 

Page | 32 


period. Expansion of other existing facilities/erection of new facilities may also occur in 

the Borough to support growth although there are no known plans at this time. Any 

forthcoming applications for new or extended facilities would be considered on their 

own merits. The one identified risk is considered to be low. 

Primary Schools 

Existing conditions 

5.26 Similar to EY, SCC has a statutory duty to ensure there are sufficient school places in 

the County to meet the present and future demand. It is the role of SCC to plan, 

organise, and commission places for all maintained schools in Surrey in a way that 

raises standards, manages rising and declining pupil numbers, and creates a diverse 

schools community. SCC seeks to exercise this function in partnership with Dioceses, 

governing bodies of schools, head teachers, local communities, and other key 

stakeholders. 

Figure 6 - School Planning Areas in Runnymede 

5.27 Runnymede is comprised of 5 primary planning areas as identified in Figure 6. There 

are a range of primary age state schools in Runnymede, 4 of which have nursery 

provision. There are also a number of private primary schools in the Borough. A short 

stay school is located on the St Peter’s Hospital campus which provides for children 

with medical or mental health needs. 

Page | 33 


Figure 7- Primary, Junior and Infant School Locations (excluding private schools) 

ID School Name ID School Name 

139 Meadowcroft Community Infant 

School 

140 The Grange Community Infant 

School 

150 St Jude's Church of England School 

151 Ottershaw Junior School 

141 Trumps Green Infant School 152 Stepgates Community School 

142 Englefield Green Infant School 153 Pyrcroft Grange Primary School 

143 Darley Dene Infant School 154 Ongar Place Primary 

144 Ottershaw Infant School 155 Manorcroft Primary School 

145 Lyne & Longcross CofE (Aided) 

Infant School 

146 Christ Church C of E (A) Infant 

School 

147 Thorpe C of E (Aided) Infant 

School 

156 Sayes Court Primary School 

157 Thorpe Lea Primary School 

158 Holy Family Catholic Primary School 

Addlestone 

148 St Ann's Heath Junior School 159 St Cuthbert's Catholic Primary School 

Englefield Green 

149 New Haw Community Junior 

School 

173 St Annes Catholic Primary 

School 

160 St Paul's C of E Primary School 

Addlestone 

173 The Hythe School 

5.28 

5.29 Figure 8 below shows the current spare primary (and secondary) places in Runnymede 

as at November 2010. 

Page | 34 


Figure 8 - Current Spare Primary & Secondary Places in Runnymede (Nov 2010) 



projections over the plan period as noted in the EY chapter Specifically, SCC has been 

provided with the minimum (2415) and maximum estimations (4512). SCC has based 

their forecasts on a mid-point figure in this range and has assumed that the number of 

new dwellings where pupils would be yielded between 2013 to 2025 would be in the 

region of 3284. 

5.31 Estimations of pupil numbers arising from these new dwellings is based on 0.25 pupils 

per dwelling as published in the Surrey Education Formula. On this basis, between 

2013 and 2025, it is estimated that 796 primary pupils will be generated. This equates 

to 27 additional primary classrooms (based on a classroom size of 30). 



dwellings are proposed) and in the Borough’s Urban Areas. Indeed to support growth, it 

is anticipated that a new primary school facility will be provided as part of the 

development. This is supported by the location of development policies in the Local 

Plan (LP01 LP02 and LP08). 


5.33 In assessing future needs for primary places, the Council has used the forecast data as 

set out in SCC’s Education Organisation Plan “School Organisation in Surrey- 2012- 

2021” 12 (SOIS 2012). It should be noted that the projections in this document are 

updated on an annual basis. Data within the SOIS 2012 sets out current provision 

across the County, as well as the spare places as of Nov 2010. 

5.34 Table 5 below estimates (as at November 2011) the number of pupils that will require a 

reception place in a primary school in Runnymede from 2012 – 2021. The projections 

take account of the anticipated impact of births and children yielded from additional 

housing in the area. This is compared with the total number of available places in 

Runnymede in the future (the Published Admission Number (PAN)). The ‘spare 

12 

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/learning/schools/future-provision-of-school-places/school-organisation-in-surrey-2012-2021 

Page | 35 


eception places’ column refers to the projected demand compared with the total 

number of available places in the reception year. 

Table 5 - number of pupils that will require a primary school place in Runnymede (2012-2021) 

Year 

PAN 

Pupils in 

Reception 

Year 

Spare 

Reception 

places 

2012/2013 818 833 -15 

2013/2014 818 849 -31 

2014/2015 818 854 -36 

2015/2016 818 864 -46 

2016/2017 818 878 -60 

2017/2018 818 892 -74 

2018/2019 818 896 -78 

2019/2020 818 915 -97 

2020/2021 818 930 -112 

2021/2022 818 918 -100 

5.35 On the basis of the above projections, it is anticipated that there will be a shortage of 

100 primary places at reception by 2021. There should be a small number of spare 

places in the Borough to take account for inward migration and in year applications. 

Therefore the demand by 2021 is likely to be for at least 4 ‘forms of entry’ (where this is 

equivalent to 30 pupils or 1 ‘class’). Adding a single form of entry equates to 7 extra 

classrooms in the primary setting as pupils move through the school (3 in an infant 

school and 4 in a junior school). 

5.36 Whilst forecasts are subject to change, Surrey County Council has a duty to provide 

places for primary age children and is planning expansions/organisational changes at 

the following schools. 

• Trumps Green – expand from PAN of 30 to 60 (90 additional places in total) 

in 2013 

• St Ann’s Heath Junior School – expand PAN from 64 to 90 (additional 104 

places and linked to Trumps Green expansion) in 2015 

• Thorpe Church of England Infant School – to become a primary school (PAN 

remains 30 but 120 additional junior places) 

• Darley Dene to become a 1fe primary school (PAN remains 30 but 120 junior 

additional junior places) in 2013. 

5.37 In addition, the further expansions listed below are stated to be required to meet future 

requirements although named schools have not yet been identified. 

• 1fe primary expansion by 2014 – to be confirmed 

• 1fe infant expansion by 2015 – to be confirmed 

• Infant to primary expansion by 2015 (additional junior places only) – to be 

confirmed. 

5.38 It is possible that further expansions will be required over the plan period at existing 

schools. The current position however is that the named schools above are planned to 

Page | 36 


proceed according to the timescales set out. Unidentified school expansions remain 

subject to change 

5.39 When considering how different areas will be affected over the plan period, schools 

serving the Virginia Water and Englefield Green planning area have a small shortage of 

places that is projected to rise to half a form of entry by 2014, a full form of entry by 

2016 and two forms of entry by 2020. The forecast increase in demand for reception 

places means Trump Green Infant School has been identified as a school to expand 

over the next few years to provide additional provision. Statutory notices have been 

published expanding Trumps Green Infant School from a one form entry (1FE) infant 

school to become a two form entry (2FE) infant school, with a Published Admission 

Number (PAN) of 60, from 1 September 2013. 

5.40 There will also be a new primary education facility at the former DERA site to serve the 

needs of the proposed development and the surrounding area. The specific details of 

this facility are not yet known. 

5.41 Due to the shortage of junior places in the Egham & Thorpe and Virginia Water & 

Englefield Green planning areas, Thorpe C of E Infant School has received approval 

from Surrey County Council Cabinet members (in July 2012) to change its status to a 

primary school from September, 2013. This will see children staying on up to year 6 

rather than leaving after year 2 as they do currently (creating an additional 120 junior 

places). 

5.42 The Addlestone & Ottershaw areas are projected to have a deficit of places of one form 

of entry by 2014 although this is influenced by demand in adjacent planning areas. 

Statutory notices have been published for Darley Dene Infant School (Addlestone) to 

change from a one entry (1FE) infant school to become a 1 FE primary school, with a 

PAN of 30, from 1 September 2013 (this will create an additional 120 junior places). 

5.43 On 24 May 2012 the Secretary of State announced which schools will have their 

condition needs addressed through the Priority School Building Programme. Four 

primary schools were selected in Surrey, but this does not include any primary or 

secondary schools within Runnymede. 

5.44 A final decision on all published Statutory Notices will be made at the Cabinet Member 

meeting on 21 November 2012. 


5.45 The table below summarises the expansion plans proposed at the Borough’s primary 

schools. 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF002 

IDPF003 

IDPF004 

Description 

Trumps Green Infant School 

expansion 

St Ann’s Heath Junior School 

expansion 

Thorpe C of E Infant School 

expansion 

Estimated 

Cost 

£1,129,230 SCC 

£1,304,888 SCC 

£1,505,640 SCC 

Key 

Provider(s) 

IDPF005 Darley Infant School expansion £1,505,640 SCC 

IDPF006 

Primary school at the former 

DERA site 

Unknown at this 

time 

Developer/SCC 

IDPF007 

One additional 1fe primary 

expansion (school unconfirmed 

at this time) 


time 

SCC 

Page | 37 


IDPF008 

One additional 1fe infant 

expansion (school unconfirmed 

at this time) 


time 

SCC 

IDPF009 

Infant to primary expansion 

(additional junior places only)- 

school unconfirmed at this time 


time 

SCC 

Total Funding required (as 

estimated by SCC) 

£10,163,259 

5.46 The cost of providing a primary school at the former DERA site would initially be met by 

the developer and SCC. 

5.47 When calculating the cost of the remainder of the listed proposals, the cost of primary 

places has been calculated in the following way. Department for Children, Schools and 

Families (DCSF) cost multipliers have been used to estimate the expected cost per 

pupil of typical school building projects for primary schools. These figures are 

commonly used by Local Authorities to estimate school building projects. In 2008/09 

the capital cost of a primary school place was £12,257. The figure is based on 2008/09 

prices and therefore needs to be index linked. Based on the Building Cost Information 

Service figures, the cost of general school building projects decreased by 8.6% 

between Q3 2008 and Q3 2011 (£/m2). A location factor of 1.12 is applicable to 

projects in Surrey to reflect the higher costs in the South East when compared to the 

national average. 

5.48 The following calculations therefore provide a cost per place for a primary school 

accurate from Q3 2011. SCC has not updated this calculation to present day to keep 

the assessment of costs consistent with those provided to other Boroughs and Districts. 

It should be noted that the following per place calculation does not factor in the costs of 

land acquisition, site abnormalities or any other exceptional costs that might be 

incurred. However, it is deemed a reasonable benchmark for a typical primary school 

building project. 

£12,257 x 0.914 x 1.12 = £12,547 per primary place (£376,417 per class) 

5.49 Based on the above information, it is expected that the total cost of providing primary 

places to meet housing growth in Runnymede 2012 –2022 would be £10,163,259 

(£376,417 x 27). 


5.50 Similar to EY risk, the main risk to this type of infrastructure is considered to be 

demand for places outpacing supply. As expansion plans at 4 of the Borough’s primary 

schools will take place within the next 5 years, and as a new primary school is to be 

provided at the former DERA site, it is considered that there is a low risk of this 

situation occurring. 

Conclusion 


IDPR002 

Unaccounted increase in demand for 

places 

5.51 Overall there is considered to be sufficient infrastructure in the Borough (or planned 

infrastructure) to meet the increase in Borough’s population over the first delivery 

period of the Local Plan. The majority of the development at the former DERA 

development, which would, in all likelihood have the greatest impact on provision, is 

Low 

Low 

Page | 38 


expected to come forward in the second and possibly third delivery periods of the Local 


Secondary Schools 


5.52 The Borough has four state run Secondary Schools which are listed as follows: 

• Magna Carta School, Thorpe Road, Staines Upon Thames 

• Salesian School, Guildford Road, Chertsey (provides a 6th form also) 

• Jubilee High School, School Lane, Addlestone 

• Fulbrook School, Selsdon Road, New Haw (provides a 6th form also) 

5.53 There are also a number of private secondary facilities in the Borough at: 

• ACS Egham International School, London Road, Egham (catering for children 

aged 2-18), 

• The American School in Switzerland (TASIS) (also catering for students up to 

the age of 18) in Thorpe village. 

• Sir William Perkins’s School, Guildford Road, Chertsey (catering for students 

aged 11-18). 

• St George’s College, Weybridge Road, Addlestone (catering for children aged 

3-18) 

5.54 There is also a Special School located in Addlestone (the Philip Southcote School) 

catering for children and young people with learning difficulties (providing for children 

aged 11-16). The location of secondary education facilities are shown on the map 

overleaf. 

Page | 39 


Figure 9-location of secondary educational facilities in the Borough 

5.55 Runnymede is a single secondary planning area. This means that demand for 

secondary places is estimated across the whole Borough. In assessing education need 

for secondary education facilities in the Borough, the Council has again used the 

forecast data as set out in the SOIS 2012 as with primary schools in the preceding 

section. In addition data from the Office for National Statistics has also been relied 

upon. 

5.56 At present there is considered to be sufficient secondary school provision to meet the 

existing needs within the Borough. As highlighted in the primary schools section 

however, an increasing birth rate means that there will be an under provision at some 

point in the future if no expansion of school places occurs. Forthcoming developments 

such as at the former DERA site will also have an impact on demand for secondary 

school places. 


5.57 The majority of increased population over the plan period is expected to be 

concentrated at the former DERA site (where 1500 dwellings are proposed) and in the 

Borough’s Urban Areas. This is supported by the location of development policies in 

Page | 40 


the Local Plan (LP01 LP02 and LP08). Strategic policy SP09 is also considered 

relevant in this case. This policy encourages people to use sustainable modes of 

transport wherever possible to access facilities. 


projections over the plan period, in particular providing SCC officers with the minimum 

(2415) and maximum estimations (4512). As noted in previous chapters, SCC has 

based their forecasts on a mid-point figure in this range and has assumed that the 

number of new dwellings where pupils would be yielded between 2013 to 2025 would 

be in the region of 3284 (or 3185 after 1 bedroom properties are excluded from the 

calculations (see the ‘Pre-school Childcare (Early Years Provision) and Children’s 

Centres’ chapter for more information on this point). 

5.59 Estimations of pupil numbers arising from these new dwellings is based on 0.18 pupils 

per dwelling as published in the Surrey Education Formula. On this basis, between 

2013 and 2025, it is estimated that 573 secondary pupils will be generated. This 

equates to 19 additional classrooms (based on a classroom size of 30). 


5.60 Secondary demand follows primary demand. SCC estimates of the future need for 

secondary places is based on taking the historic transfer ratio from Year 6 to Year 7 in 

the Borough, and applying this to their estimated numbers for future Year 6 cohorts. 

The table below estimates (as at November 2011) the numbers of pupils that will 

require a secondary school place in Runnymede from 2012 – 2021. This is compared 

to the total number of available places in secondary schools in Runnymede in the 

future (the PAN). The ‘spare’ places refer to the projected demand compared to the 

total number of available places. 

Table 6-number of pupils that will require a secondary school place in Runnymede (2012-2021) 

Year 

PAN 

Pupils in 

Year 7 

Spare Year 7 

places 

2012/2013 915 916 -1 

2013/2014 915 851 64 

2014/2015 915 914 1 

2015/2016 915 914 1 

2016/2017 915 889 26 

2017/2018 915 968 -53 

2018/2019 915 1000 -85 

2019/2020 915 1030 -115 

2020/2021 915 1057 -142 

2021/2022 915 1065 -150 

5.61 By the end of 2021, it is anticipated that there will be a need for about 150 extra places 

at the intake year (year 7). This is equivalent to 5 additional forms of entry. There is 

projected to be a shortage of secondary school places in the Borough by 2017/2018. A 

form of entry is equivalent to 30 pupils or 1 ‘class’. Adding a single form of entry 

equates to 5 extra classrooms in the secondary setting as pupils move through the 

school. Secondary schools provide for much larger catchment areas than primary 

schools and officers plan secondary provision across Borough boundaries. There are 

interrelationships between the Boroughs of Runnymede, Woking, Spelthorne and 

Surrey Heath. 

Page | 41 


5.62 SCC is planning on the basis that, by 2021, between 6-8 additional forms of entry in 

Woking will be required, 4 forms of entry in Spelthorne and between 5 and 6 additional 

forms of entry in Runnymede. There are expected to be sufficient secondary school 

places in Surrey Heath during this period. Officers at SCC have met with schools to 

discuss how this demand could be met but these discussions are at a relatively early 

stage and plans have not yet been defined to the point where individual projects can be 

named. 

5.63 In terms of school expansion which is planned within Runnymede, against the lack of 

development in Runnymede’s state school sector, private schools continue to expand. 

Most noteworthy expansion plans which the Council is aware of at the Borough’s 

secondary schools are listed as follows: 

5.64 Expansion and rationalisation of facilities both on and off campus up to 2015-2018 at 

The American School in Switzerland (TASIS). This is following the approval of a 

masterplan at the site in 2008 (under RU.07/1153). The proposals would allow for an 

increase in the number of students from 725 to 800. 

5.65 In 2010, outline permission was granted (RU.10/0025) for a 10 year outline Master Plan 

at Sir William Perkins’s School (outlining proposed works on campus up to 2020). 

Since this time, a number of reserved matters applications have been approved for 

various elements of the masterplan under RU.10/0422 and RU.11/0292. 

5.66 The DERA site is expected to generate around 491 pupils of secondary school age. 

This is considered to be too small a number to generate the provision of an additional 

stand alone Secondary School in the Borough, however it is possible that when 

combined with potential shortfalls in provision in the surrounding area that a secondary 

school at DERA could become a viable option. 


5.67 Currently there are no state school expansion plans. 

5.68 The alterations and extensions proposed to TASIS and Sir William Perkins’s School will 

be funded privately. The costs are unknown. 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF010 

IDPF011 

Description 

Expansion and rationalisation of 

facilities at TASIS 

New facilities at Sir William Perkins’s 

School 

Estimated 

Cost 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Key 

Provider(s) 

TASIS 

Sir William 

Perkins’s 

School 

5.69 DCSF Cost Multipliers have been used to estimate the expected cost per pupil of a 

typical secondary school building project. In 2008/09 the capital cost of a secondary 

school place was approximately £18,469. This figure is commonly used by Local 

Authorities to estimate school building projects. The figure is based on 2008/09, prices 

and therefore needs to be index linked. Based on the Building Cost Information Service 

figures, the cost of general school building projects decreased by 8.6% between Q3 

2008 and Q3 2011 (£/m2). A location factor of 1.12 is applicable to projects in Surrey to 

reflect the higher costs in the South East when compared to the national average. The 

following calculations therefore provide the cost per place for a secondary school place, 

accurate from Q3 2011. SCC has not updated this calculation to present day to keep 

the assessment of costs consistent with those provided to other Boroughs and Districts. 

It should be noted that the following per place calculation does not factor in the costs of 

land acquisition, site abnormalities or any other exceptional costs that might be 

incurred. However, it is deemed a reasonable benchmark for a typical secondary 

school building project. 

Page | 42 


£18,469 x 0.914 x 1.12 = £18,906 per secondary place (£567,180 per class of pupils) 

5.70 Based on the above information it is expected that the total cost of secondary school 

provision needed due to housing growth in Runnymede 2012 –2022 would be 

£10,776,420 (£567,180 x 19). 

5.71 Along with the primary school requirement detailed in the above sub chapter, it is 

therefore estimated that an estimated total developer contribution of £20,939,679 will 

be required over the period 2013-2025 for primary and secondary expansion. 


5.72 The main risk to this type of infrastructure relates to supply of places failing to meet 

demand. Two of the Borough’s private secondary providers are proposing expansion 

over the plan period. This will help meet increases in demand for private schools. At the 

current time, there are no known plans for expansion at any of the Borough’s state 

schools. As such the risk of under supply is considered medium. 

Conclusion 


IDPR003 

Supply failing to meet demand in the 

publically provided schools 

Medium 

Medium 

5.73 Overall, whilst there is considered to be sufficient provision of secondary places at the 

current time, it is predicted that there will be an undersupply of state school places over 

the plan period, which is likely to require SCC to provide additional places. At the 

current time however, details of specific expansion schemes are not known. 

Further Education 

Existing Provision 

5.74 Further education covers the types of education which go beyond what has been 

achieved in compulsory education, but which are not at degree level (Higher 

Education). Typically, further education includes A levels, AS levels and vocational 

qualifications. The largest group of people in further education are those aged between 

16 and 19, although many other people undertake full-time or part-time further 

education. 

5.75 Opportunities for further education in the Borough are available at following: 

• Strodes College in Egham; 

• Salesian School, Guildford Road, Chertsey (sixth form); 

• Fulbrook School, Selsdon Road, New Haw (sixth form); and, 

• A number of the private schools within the Borough such as St George’s 

College, Addlestone. 

5.76 Strodes College in Egham comprises a single campus located at Egham. The college 

also provides learning facilities at a number of community centres across Runnymede 

Borough 13 . It is a specialist facility for the education of 16-19 year olds and is the main 

focus within the Borough for further education. It caters for 1,300 full-time students, 

from over 80 schools, from an increasingly wide geographic area. It is the largest 

provider of Advanced level (A level) education in north-west Surrey offering 50 AS/A 

levels, in addition to BTECs and other vocational options. Intermediate courses are 

also available. It also has a growing number of adult learners and has an adult 

education provision (day & evening) providing a range of classes. 

13 

Surrey Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2009) 

Page | 43 


5.77 Students within Runnymede can also access further education from providers such as: 

St George’s College (Coeducational) Eton College (Boys); FarnBorough College 

(Coeducational); Guildford College (Coeducational); Godalming College 

(Coeducational); and Brooklands College (Coeducational). 

5.78 Within Surrey, there are already a high percentage of students (87 percent 16 year olds 

and 80 percent 17 year olds) who stay within education beyond age 16 (Surrey 

Infrastructure Capacity Study 2009). 


5.79 Demand for places in further education is not likely to be as affected by the new 

housing development forecast to come forward over the course of the Local Plan as 

those types of education already discussed (early years, primary and secondary 

provision). Specifically, demand for further education places is not likely to be as strong 

as for early years, primary and secondary places as the drivers are different. In 

particular, catchments for colleges and 6 th forms extend beyond Borough boundaries 

giving students a greater choice and potentially increasing travelling distance. 

5.80 As a result, the effect of housing provision from the Local Plan is progressively more 

difficult to quantify locally. Strategic policy SP09 encourages people to use sustainable 

modes of transport wherever possible to access facilities. By encouraging greater 

connectivity through sustainable forms of transport, further education facilities become 

more accessible to students within and from outside the Borough. 


5.81 The Education and Skills Act was passed in November 2008, making education or 

training compulsory until the age of 18. The participation age is being raised in two 

stages, to 17 from 2013 and to 18 from 2015. The first cohort to be affected by these 

changes began at Year 7 in September 2008. 

5.82 Raising the education and training age to 18 is likely to affect the way services are 

planned for, and delivered, due to a change in admissions criteria and a possible 

increase in the gross number of students who remain in education. 

5.83 Within the Borough specifically, Strodes College has been developing its campus over 

recent years to meet the demands of increased student numbers. Capital investment 

programmes at Strodes College have improved student facilities, providing a New 

Sports Hall and Education Centre amongst other things. Over recent years in particular, 

planning permission has been granted for: 

• The erection of a new teaching block containing 12 classrooms replacing 7 

temporary classroom huts and a new staff/student centre to replace existing 

facilities including the refectory and common room in 2007 (under 

RU.07/0583). These works have been completed. 

• The erection of a two storey teaching block to replace the existing modular 

classrooms, new 2 storey drama studio and internal alterations to existing 

library and learning resources centre (to include new entrance, first floor 

mezzanine and study rooms), toilets, offices and circulation areas and 

outdoor seating area in 2010 (under RU.10/0974). This approval has been 

implemented. 

• The permanent change of the caretakers bungalow to 2 teaching rooms in 

2012 (under RU.12/0450). 

5.84 Noteworthy permissions relating to other providers of further education are discussed in 

the secondary schools section above, most notably relating to TASIS and Sir William 

Perkins’s School (this is because these schools provide both secondary and further 

education). 

Page | 44 



5.85 It is unknown how any works planned at Strodes College are funded at this time. 

Funding 

ID 


Description 

Estimated 

Cost 

IDPF012 Various works at Strodes College Unknown 

Key 

Provider(s) 

Strodes 

College 

5.86 Whilst the capacity of each of the further education providers in the Borough has not 

been assessed, the risk to this type of infrastructure is assumed to be relatively low as 

there are a range of providers both inside and outside of the Borough that provide for 

choice in further education for Runnymede students. 

Conclusion 

5.87 Further education is considered to not be as sensitive to Local Plan housing provision 

as its operational catchment is considerably greater than the boundary of the Borough. 

Provision is both through private and state facilities. Overall, there is considered to be 

sufficient provision of this type of infrastructure in north Surrey to meet both the current 

needs of the Borough’s students, and to meet growth over the plan period. 

Adult Education 


5.88 Within Surrey generally, provision of Adult Education is focused on: maximising access 

to community learning, bringing new opportunities and improving lives, whatever 

people’s circumstances; promoting social renewal by bringing local communities 

together to experience the joy of learning and the pride that comes from achievement; 

maximising the impact of community learning on the social and economic well-being of 

individuals, families and communities. SCC has indicated that general discussions are 

taking place within the County to review assets available for community learning, for 

the 19+ age group. 

5.89 Within Runnymede specifically, there is one County Council maintained Adult 

Education Centre, namely: the Runnymede Adult Learning Centre. 

5.90 Provision through local schools, colleges, church halls and community centres also 

exists throughout the Borough. Strodes College also has a long tradition of serving the 

adult community with a wide range of day time and evening classes. The areas 

covered are as follows: Arts & Crafts, Business and Professional, Computing & Digital 

Images, Dance & Music, Food & Wine, General Studies, Health & Personal 

Development, Languages 

5.91 In November 2006, Strodes College opened a Community Learning Centre on Egham 

High Street. The College also offer courses at a number of community venues within 

the Borough of Runnymede. 

5.92 Surrey County Council’s Learner Involvement Strategy (September 2010) states that, 

“Surrey County Council has a renewed commitment to Adult and Community Learning. 

It values this form of learning and the contribution it can make in today’s society. It 

wishes to be at the forefront of developing new models of delivery and engage learners 

who have to date not enjoyed the benefits of learning on our extensive programme”. 

SCC states that it is committed to consulting learners on all aspects of the organisation, 

including teaching and learning, facilities, support services and overall. 

5.93 The Adult Education service offered in Runnymede is considered to be in keeping with 

the Skills Funding Agency priorities, where a commitment has been made to reach 

learners who have not previously enjoyed the benefits of learning on an adult 

Page | 45 



community learning (ACL) programme. A number of initiatives are being worked on 

including marketing and information distributions. This is taking place through a number 

of information points in the local community, and at colleges, surgeries, NHS hospitals 

etc. 

5.94 An increased population in the Borough over the plan period may increase the number 

of adults interested in taking part in adult learning courses. Local Plan policy SP09 is 

considered to be particularly important in ensuring that adult learning venues are 

accessible for residents using sustainable modes of transport. 


5.95 Enrolment numbers in adult education courses are reported to have dropped in recent 

years. Unsurprisingly perhaps, there are no known plans to provide further adult 

education facilities in the Borough over the plan period. The County delivers some 

courses at local community venues in addition to a network of dedicated adult learning 

centres. This mix of delivery locations is likely to continue as the preferred model. 

Common barriers to adult learning in Runnymede include the cost of some 

programmes, inadequate communication channels, lack of childcare and transport. 

Costs & funding sources 

5.96 As there are no known plans in the Borough for provision of additional facilities, this 

section is not relevant. 


5.97 There are no identified risks for this receptor at this time. 

Conclusion 

5.98 It is considered that there are sufficient facilities in the Borough which provide 

opportunities for adult education. Given that enrolment numbers are reported to have 

dropped, it is considered reasonable to assume that the existing facilities in the 

Borough do have sufficient capacity to accommodate growth during the plan period. 

Higher Education 

Existing Conditions 

5.99 There have been major reforms to the higher education sector, with the government 

stating it wants higher education to become more sustainable. Three major shifts have 

been: 

• shifted public spending away from teaching grants and towards repayable 

tuition loans; 

• higher expectations for institutions to deliver a better student experience; 

• improving teaching, assessment, feedback and preparation for the world of 

work and responsibility for increasing social mobility 14 . 

5.100 Institutions are under pressure to increase capacity and follow a business model where 

the student is a customer. As a result, expectations are high on both the teaching and 

learning experiences and the facilities on offer. 

5.101 Within the Borough itself, Royal Holloway University of London in Egham is the only 

higher education provider. Royal Holloway is acknowledged for research excellence in 

14 

Students at the Heart of the System - Department for Business innovations and skills – June 2011 

Page | 46 


the arts, humanities and sciences. Its research community collaborates on research 

projects with other international universities, industry, charities and public agencies, 

and attracts leading academics and research students from throughout the world. 

Royal Holloway has a significant impact on the Borough, building partnerships with the 

business community and playing a role in achieving economic success. 

Local Plan Core Strategy 

5.102 LP05 is a specific policy relating to Royal Holloway University of London. This policy 

provides Royal Holloway with some scope for on site expansion to help meet its growth 

projections over the plan period. 


5.103 Royal Holloway is in the process of producing a masterplan which will advise of the 

aspirations of this higher education provider over the plan period. At the current time 

however, the exact aspirations of this provider are unknown although it is thought that 

this masterplan will include proposals to develop within the current site to meet student 

accommodation, academic growth and refreshment needs. 


5.104 The funding for any proposals at RHUL would be sourced by the University. 

Funding 

ID 


Description 

Estimated 

Cost 

Key 

Provider(s) 

IDPF013 Development at RHUL campus Unknown RHUL 

5.105 The main risk to RHUL is the recent increase in tuition fees reducing student 

enrolment. The effect of the increase in fees will however need to be re visited over a 

number of ears to see what effect (if any) it is having on universities. As such the level 

of risk cannot be determined at this time. 

Conclusion 


IDPR004 

Increase in tuition fees reducing 

student enrolment 

Unknown 

Unknown 

5.106 It is known that RHUL has plans to expand and accommodate growth over the plan 

period. Details of the University’s plans are however unknown at this time. Whilst the 

submission of the University’s masterplan is still awaited by the Council, it is envisaged 

that LP05 will allow RHUL with some scope to accommodate growth on the campus 


Page | 47 


Chapter 6. Transport 

Introduction 

6.1 Similar to other IDP Chapters, this chapter will consider the various types of transport 

related infrastructure in the Borough, both looking at existing provision and likely future 

provision. Where future projects are identified, the costs and sources of funding will be 

explored. The chapter will specifically consider the following areas: 

• The strategic road network 

• The non strategic road network 

• Rail infrastructure 

• The bus network 

• Walking and cycling 

• Parking 

6.2 Department for Transport’s ‘Road Transport Forecasts 2011’ advises that observed 

aggregated travel patterns that impact on transport infrastructure are best considered 

across five dimensions (DfT 2011 15 ): 

1- whether to travel (generation/frequency); 

2- where to travel to (destination); 

3- which mode to travel by (mode choice); 

4- what time to travel; and 

5- which route to take (assignment). 

6.3 The development forecasted over the Local Plan period could have either a 

direct/indirect effect on all five dimensions. 

Strategic Road Network 


6.4 Runnymede is intersected by two motorways which form part of the Strategic Road 

Network (SRN): the M25, which goes round London and runs north south through the 

Borough, and the M3 16 which crosses east west, and which links South West London to 

Southampton and the South Coast (See Figure 10). The intersection of these two 

motorways at junction 12 of the M25 is located relatively central in the Borough. Whilst 

there are no junctions of the M3 which provide access into the Borough, junctions 11 

(Chertsey) and 13 (Egham) of the M25 provide access from the SRN into the Borough 

(See: Figure 11). 

15 

See: http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/road-transport-forecasts-2011/ 

16 

Enterprise M3 LEP is also located around the spine of the M3 Motorway corridor some 75 miles through Hampshire and Surrey 

(See: Figure 4) 

Page | 48 


Figure 10 - Strategic Road Network – England (Source: HA 2012) 

6.5 The Highways Agency Regional Network Report (2008) identifies congestion on the 

SRN as a particular concern in the South East region, and it is stated that congestion is 

expected to increase along with the growth in road-based freight and commuting. In 

Runnymede itself, the stretch of motorway between junction 1A and 16 off the M25 is 

identified as one of the less transport-efficient parts of the SRN in the South East. This 

stretch of motorway as well as the stretch of motorway between junctions 2 and 4 of 

the M3 (part of which runs through Runnymede) were identified as having high daily 

stress levels in 2006. 

Page | 49 


Figure 11 - Runnymede's Strategic Road Network 

6.6 The Highways Agency has however carried out works to improve the M3/M25 junction 

within the Borough given the levels of congestion experienced. Specifically, a 

temporary change was carried out to the road layout in March 2007, designed to try 

and reduce the overall delay at junction 12 of the M25. Given the positive results 

achieved during the trial period, the revised layout has been permanently changed, with 

works being completed in September 2009. 


6.7 Local Plan location policies LP01-LP08, confirm the quantity and general location of 

new development in the Borough over the plan period. These policies conclude that 

development would largely be focussed in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the 

former DERA site in Longcross. Growth is also envisaged at RHUL. Development in all 

of these areas over the plan period is likely to increase the number of residents and 

businesses in the Borough using the SRN. 

6.8 Strategic policy 9 (SP09): Sustainable Transport (which should be read alongside the 

location policies) states however, that it will be sought to reduce reliance on the private 

Page | 50 


car over the plan period. Reducing the reliance on the private car could in turn reduce 

pressure on the SRN (it is however acknowledged that the SRN provides a transport 

route for many people outside the Borough, as well as Borough residents and 

businesses). 

6.9 The effects development will have on the Strategic and Non-Strategic Road Networks 

were assessed in the Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) carried out by Surrey County 

Council for RBC in 2010 to accompany the core strategy. This modelling was based on 

2500 dwellings coming forward on the former DERA site and 65,000sqm of commercial 

floor space. Since the 2010 TIA was published however the predicted amount of 

development on the former DERA site has changed and now some 1500 dwellings are 

proposed and 80,000sqm of commercial floor space. As such, the modelling is 

currently being updated by SCC to reflect these amended figures and other 

adjustments to the forecasted level of development in the Borough over the plan 

period. The TIA 2012 is expected to be completed by SCC officers at the end of 

November 2012. Surrey County Council has however in the meantime produced a 

Technical Note: Transport measures to support growth identified in the Runnymede 

Borough Core Strategy’ (June 2012) which identifies weaknesses and threats to the 

existing transport network in the Borough and lists the schemes which are proposed by 

SCC to support growth in the Borough over the plan period. 


6.10 There are no known schemes planned to the SRN within the Borough over the plan 

period. 

6.11 There are however a number of schemes planned on the SRN in close proximity to the 

Borough which may come forward over the plan period. These schemes may have 

implications for Runnymede’s businesses and residents. As such, these schemes are 

considered worthy of mention. These schemes are: 

• Scheme of improvements to the A3 junctions through Guildford estimated to 

cost between £8 and £10 million. This scheme has been recommended by 

Enterprise M3 to the Highways Agency. Whilst the scheme has failed to 

secure government funding to date, there will be a third tranche of funding 

announced in early 2013 and it is hoped that Government will approve 

funding for improvements on this road at this time 17 . 

• M25 Junction 10 Wisley Junction: Several schemes are under consideration 

to address congestion on the northbound A3 on-slip and northbound M25 offslip. 

SCC gave support to the proposals in the Enterprise M3 consultation on 

Highways Agency schemes in April 2012. 

• M3 Corridor Junction 3 and 4a: Study proposed to build on conclusions of 

Transport Evaluation for M3 Corridor Cross Authority Study. The study would 

look to assess the cumulative impacts of future development on the M3 

corridor specifically between M3 Junction 3 (Lightwater) and M3 Junction 4a 

(FarnBorough). Depending on the conclusions of the study, additional 

infrastructure provision or further investigation to identify deliverable 

mitigation or demand management measures may then be required. 


6.12 As no works to the SRN within the Borough are forecasted over the plan period, the 

costs and funding sources do not need to be considered in this section. 

17 

See: http://www.enterprisem3.org.uk/news/5-9m-road-boost-for-the-enterprise-m3-area/ 

Page | 51 



6.13 The production of an effective and robust sustainable transport strategy for the 

Borough [Risk ID IDPR004] might not be achieved over the plan period. As a result, 

congestion on the SRN could increase to an unacceptable level. This could have a 

knock on effect for congestion on the non strategic road network and could reduce the 

desirability of the Borough for residents and businesses to live in and operate from. 

This could have implications for economic growth within the Borough. The likelihood of 

Risk IDRT71 being realised is considered high, given the fact that to date, and in spite 

of numerous transport strategies and transport plans being in place, the effects of 

congestion continue to increase. The severity is considered to be medium, as the 

effects if realised will act more frequently above the capacity of the network. 

6.14 Risk ID IDPR005 relates to the affects of accelerated climate change. It considers the 

ability of the network to function to capacity as a result of adaptation inaction on the 

part of the network provider/users. This is a recognised and credible universal risk to 

this infrastructure and one that the Council has no control over. The probability is 

considered low given the fact that events such as snow generally presents more 

problems on the non-strategic road network than the SRN, and thus corresponds with a 

reduction in the load capacity requirement on the strategic network. The severity 

however is considered to be high. 

6.15 The impact Runnymede's Local Plan will have on the SRN [Risk IDPR006] is being 

assessed in the SCC TIA 2012 (expected end of November 2012). It is considered 

likely however that the TIA 2012 will confirm that any increase in traffic on the SRN as 

a result of the forecasted development in the Local Plan coming forward will not 

significantly impact on the SRN. 

6.16 In summary three risks are identified which are summarised in the table below. 

Conclusion 


IDPR004 

IDPR005 

Failure to achieve sustainable transport 

strategy 

Effect of climate change on network 

capacity 

High 

Low 

Medium 

High 

IDPR006 Impact of RBC Local Plan on SRN Medium Medium 

6.17 Development proposals over the plan period are likely to place some additional 

pressure on the SRN routes which run through Runnymede. It is considered 

reasonable to assume that pressure on the SRN will come from the increase in 

development across Surrey and the London Fringe sub region generally however 

rather than the development proposed in Runnymede in isolation. This is however a 

tentative conclusion at this stage and can only be verified once the TIA 2012 has been 

completed. 

6.18 Of the three identified risks, IDPR004 is likely to be the only one that RBC could 

reasonably influence. The other identified risks lie outside the Council’s control. 

Non-Strategic Road Network 


6.19 The non-strategic road network comprises A roads (non trunk), B, C and D roads which 

connect the various settlements within the Borough as well as areas outside the 

Borough boundaries. Significant routes within the Borough which lead into the SRN are 

identified as follows (and are shown in Figure 11 above): 

Page | 52 


• A317 - runs through Weybridge town centre, through Addlestone, to join the 

M25 at junction 11 

• A318-runs from Chertsey to Byfleet 

• A319-runs from Lightwater to Chertsey 

• A320-runs from Guildford through Ottershaw and Chertsey within the 

Borough and up to Staines 

• A30-runs from Hounslow through Egham within the Borough and eventually 

on to Land’s End 

• A308-runs from Brompton to Maidenhead, running through Staines and past 

the Runnymede Meadows at the northernmost part of the Borough 

6.20 Traffic flows on A roads in Surrey are far higher than the national average, averaging 

21,400 vehicles per day (Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)), 64% higher than the 

national average of 13,079 vehicles per day (Surrey County Council, movement 

monitoring report, 2008). This means that there is significant amount of traffic passing 

through the Borough on a daily basis. The Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Study (June 

2009) notes that the ‘traffic volume over capacity (V/C) ratio’ is particularly problematic 

on the A318 Chertsey Road, and on the A320 Guildford Road. Surrey County Council 

has also identified the Runnymede Roundabout as being, ‘highly problematic in terms 

of severe queuing and delay to motorists’. 

6.21 The car is the preferred mode of personal transport in the Borough and over two thirds 

of people travel to work by car in Runnymede, making it the most heavily relied upon 

mode. This is 7% higher than for England as a whole. In terms of sustainable travel, 

England as a whole has nearly doubled the amount of people travelling to work by 

sustainable modes of transport (such as public transport) than Runnymede (14.5% and 

8.2% respectively) 18 . 

Figure 12-Changes in Car per household 1981 - 2001 

6.22 The 2001 Census revealed that there were 46,061 cars in Runnymede (see Figure 12 

above). This data was based on the Census 2001 data set that was updated in 2007 

and showed that 46,070 cars were in Runnymede, which equates to 1.46 cars 

per/household as set out in Table 7. 

18 

State of Runnymede Report 2004 – Section 9 Travel 

Page | 53 


Table 7 - Cars and vans in Runnymede (2001) 

Variable Runnymede South East England 

All Households (Households) 31,657 3,287,489 20,451,427 

No car or van (Households) 4,813 638,772 5,488,386 

1 car or van (Households) 12,523 1,400,989 8,935,718 

2 cars or vans (Households) 10,834 971,698 4,818,581 

3 cars or vans (Households) 2,501 206,914 924,289 

4 or more cars or vans 

(Households) 

986 69,116 284,453 

Total cars or vans (Vehicles) 46,070 4,271,483 22,607,629 

Last Updated: 01 March 2007 

Source: Office for National Statistics 

6.23 The reliance on the car in Runnymede is reflected in both the high car ownership rates 

across the Borough and high levels of commuting. A similar trend is also observed in 

the remainder of Surrey Boroughs. In particular, according to ONS data, 85% of 

households within the Borough owned at least one car in 2001 (See: Figure 13 as 

updated in 2007) and of these, 11% of households owned 3 or more cars. This is 

higher than the average in England as a whole where, at this time, 74% of households 

own at least one car but where a higher percentage of people owned just one car (at 

44%) and only 6% owned more than 3 cars. 

Figure 13 - Car ownership in Runnymede compared with England and the South East 

3 or more cars 

or vans 

/(Households) 

2 cars or vans 

/(Households) 

1 car or van 

/(Households) 

As a % of Households in 

England 

As % of Households in the 

South East 

As % of Runnymede's 

Households 

No car or van 

/(Households) 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 

6.24 One major issue which faces Runnymede specifically in terms of the dependency on 

this mode of transport is the volume of traffic on the non strategic road network, 

especially generated by commuters. Table 8 - Runnymede Travel to Work Patterns’ 

provides an analysis of the travel to work pattern and is based on the 2001 Census 

data. It is reasonable to assume that this breakdown will continue into the first 

infrastructure delivery period of the Local Plan. 

Page | 54 


Table 8 - Runnymede Travel to Work Patterns 

Runnymede 

15% Increase 

Working population in Runnymede 58,112 66,829 

Population Live & Work in 

Borough 

16,868 19,398 

Population travelling – Out to 

Work 

22,057 25,366 

Population travelling – In to Work 26,939 30,980 

Net Inflow 4,882 5,614 

Daily Work Population in Borough 43,807 50,378 

Daily Work Week Population 63,882 73,464 

Last Updated: State of Runnymede Report 2004 

Source: Office for National Statistics 

6.25 The First Annual State of Runnymede Report (2004) compared the data across Surrey 

and concluded that Runnymede is one of four Surrey Boroughs that has net inflows of 

commuters (see Table 8). Given that many journeys are in cars containing only one 

person, congestion and its knock on effects is therefore expected to become 

increasingly worse over the life of the plan. Figure 15 below has been taken from the 

Runnymede Borough Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 

Compact Report (2006) and shows the forecasted population change by age group in 

the Borough up to 2021. According to this data, the population is set to increase by 

almost 20% between 2006 and 2021. This is in contrast to the 8.5% increase in 

population suggested in Table 5. Irrespective of the differences between these 

projections, the projected population on all counts is expected to increase. 

6.26 When these population projections are considered in conjunction with the high car 

ownership figures in the Borough, it is logical to assume that the number of car owners 

within the Borough will also continue to increase over the plan period. As the number of 

cars using the non-strategic road network increases, peak hour congestion would also 

be expected to continue to increase. 

Page | 55 


Figure 14- SHMA Population Age Projections 2006 - 2021 

80.0% 

75.0% 

% Age Population Change 2006-2021 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10 .0 % 

34.1% 

21.4% 

21.1% 

29.1% 

16 .1% 

6.3% 7.3% 16 .7% 

13 .7% 

40.6% 

38.5% 

33.3% 

31.0% 

23.3% 

9.3% 10 .2 % 0.0% 

0.0% 

6.27 Parts of the existing non strategic road network within the Borough are known to 

experience problems at the current time. According to information 19 supplied by Surrey 

County Council, between 1st January 2009 and 29th February 2012, the non-strategic 

road network contained 8 cluster sites for traffic accidents. These were: 

• A320 Guildford Road Junction St Peters Way, Chertsey (10 accidents over 

analysis period) 

• A318 Chertsey Road Junction Green Lane, Addlestone (12 accidents over 

analysis period) 

• A320 St Peters Way at M25, Junction 11 (36 accidents over analysis period) 

• A317 Addlestonemoor roundabout, Addlestone (20 accidents over analysis 

period) 

• A30 London Road Junction with Blacknest Road, Virginia Water (8 accidents 

over analysis period) 

• A30 London Road Junction St Judes Road/Bakeham Road, Egham (13 

accidents over analysis period) 

• A308 The Causeway Junction with Staines Bridge, Staines (15 accidents 

over analysis period) 

• A30 Egham by pass junction with Runnymede Roundabout, Egham (By-pass 

and The Avenue arms only) (10 accidents over analysis period) 

6.28 On the A318, A320 and A30 by pass (junction with Runnymede Roundabout), it is 

considered reasonable to assume that the high number of accidents could correlate 

with the particularly problematic 20 ‘traffic volume over capacity (V/C) ratios’ as reported 

19 

Criteria = 3 or more injury collisions in last year, then extended analysis for 3 years to date. 

20 

Problematic in terms of severe queuing and delays to motorists. 

Page | 56 



by Surrey County Council. At this time however there is not sufficient evidence to infer 

whether a similar correlation exists at the other locations. 

6.29 Local Plan location policies LP01-LP08, confirm the quantity and general location of 

new development in the Borough over the plan period. These policies conclude that 

development would largely be focussed in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the 

former DERA site in Longcross. Growth is also envisaged at RHUL. Development in all 

of these areas over the plan period is likely to increase the number of residents and 

businesses in the Borough using the non strategic road network. Specifically, it is 

estimated that over the plan period 2011 – 2026, at least 2415 new residential units will 

be provided within the general locations as set out in Table 8. 

6.30 Strategic policy 9 (SP09): Sustainable Transport which should be read alongside the 

location policies states however that it will be sought to reduce reliance on the private 

car over the plan period. Reducing the reliance on the private car could in turn reduce 

pressure on the non strategic road network (it is however acknowledged that the non 

strategic road network provides a transport route for people passing through the 

Borough, as well as Borough residents and businesses). 

6.31 Across Surrey as a whole, it is expected that car trips will rise by some 19% between 

2005 and 2026 and by approximately 15% over this same period in Runnymede. 21 

Assuming that the 15% increase in car trips was applicable to the inflow numbers, this 

would represent a new inflow of 5,614 per day. 

6.32 The Local Plan expects major new developments (for example at the former DERA 

site) to provide highway improvements to help mitigate against the transportation 

impacts that such developments generate. 

6.33 The effects that development in the Borough over the plan period will have on the 

strategic and non-strategic road networks are currently being assessed by the SCC 

Transportation Modelling team who will report their findings in the TIA for Runnymede 

at the end of November 2012. 


6.34 Whilst the TIA 2012 has not yet been published, Surrey County Council’s technical 

note: entitled ‘Transport measures to support growth identified in the Runnymede 

Borough Core Strategy’ (June 2012) contains details of the schemes which are 

proposed to come forward on the existing transport network in Runnymede over the 

plan period. These schemes are summarised as follows: 

• Highway improvements at Egham High Street/Church Road, Egham (to be 

completed by 2015)-this specifically relates to the provision of 2 new bus 

stops/shelters and a signal controlled pedestrian crossing. Further works in 

the area are also being carried out on the highway by the developer at their 

expense. 

• Road safety scheme at Whitehall Lane, Egham 

• Widening of High Street and Station Road, adjustment to Church Road and 

Crouch Oak Lane, Addlestone 

• Safety improvements at A318 Chertsey Road, on approach to Addlestone 

Moor roundabout (to be completed by 2015) 

• Road safety scheme at Guildford Road/St. Peters Way (to be completed by 

2015) 

21 

Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Study (Jun 2009) 

Page | 57 


• Englefield Green and Egham-controlled parking zones 

• Dedicated M25 lane (feasibility and design only )at A317 St Peters Way, 

Chertsey 

• Lyne Crossing Road/Bridge Lane, Chertsey-safety improvements (to be 

completed by 2016) 

• Wapshott Road, Bowes Road and St Pauls Road, Staines-traffic 

management scheme 

• Highway improvements at Chobham Lane/Burma Road, Longcross; 

Carriageway widening at roundabout to increase capacity 

6.35 In addition, works are also proposed to the Runnymede Roundabout at the junction of 

A318 and A320 and A30 bypass to improve the ‘traffic volume over capacity (V/C) 

ratios’. Specifically, vehicle speeds are reported to be high and the site is highly 

problematic in terms of severe queuing and delay to motorists. Traffic flows are high, 

particularly during the peak hours, and there is a considerable degree of crossing 

activity at or near the roundabout, and a history of personal injury accidents. 

6.36 The proposals are to convert the roundabout to signal control, and to widen the 

circulatory carriageway to up to four circulating lanes and with a U-turn facility at the 

A308 ‘The Glanty’. Enhanced pedestrian and cycle facilities would be provided, 

including toucan crossings where feasible. The intention is to link with the Thames 

Riverside Path (also an off-road cycle route), accessed from the A30 northbound slip to 

Junction 13 of the M25. This would provide residents of Egham with a direct link to this 

footpath. It would also remove pedestrians from the immediate vicinity of the busy 

carriageway, and would create a direct route. On the island of the roundabout, 

pedestrian paths will meet and directly cross, forming a "Y" shape to link the toucan 

crossings. 

6.37 A fundamental benefit of the proposed improvements to the roundabout would be the 

impact it would have on traffic congestion in the area. At the current time, the peak hour 

congestion in the area of the roundabout is viewed as a serious impediment to future 

economic activity. Promoting economic activity is an important consideration in the 

Runnymede Local Plan. Action is needed to unlock further growth potential by 

implementing this scheme (Surrey County Council Technical Note, June 2012). 

6.38 Beyond 2019 it is also proposed to carry out works to widen the carriageway at the 

Staines upon Thames Bridge and add a foot/cycle way on the upstream side. Various 

options are being considered at this time. 

6.39 The development at the former DERA site will provide a large mixed use settlement on 

the western side of the Borough. The site also extends into Surrey Heath Borough 

Council’s administrative area. A number of highway improvements will be required as 

part of any redevelopment of this site, both inside and outside the Borough. To date 

however, the only application that has been submitted relates to the replacement of the 

main part of the vehicular access to the former DERA North Site, including a 

roundabout, carriageway, hoarding, wall, landscaping and associated infrastructure and 

engineering operations from Chobham Lane. This application (RU.12/0946) was 

submitted in September 2012, but remains undetermined at the time of writing this 

report. 

6.40 Policy LP05 allows for some the expansion of RHUL. The policy requires a masterplan 

to be prepared to detail the totality and proposed phasing of any proposed works. 

Expansion on campus may result in access changes to the campus from the A30 

Page | 58 



6.41 It is not known what all of the schemes identified in the ‘future provision’ section will 

cost, although road safety schemes put forward by SCC are typically funded by the 

Runnymede Local Committee from their Integrated Transport Scheme (ITS) budget, 

S106 /PIC contributions and Member allocation funding. 

6.42 The proposed works at the Runnymede roundabout are estimated to cost in the region 

of £5 million. Surrey County Council has confirmed that it is anticipated that the works 

would be funded by one or more of the following: Surrey Council, S.106 money, 

regional infrastructure funding, LEP money. It is not yet known how the proposed 

works to Staines Upon Thames Bridge would be funded, although the options that are 

being considered at the current time would have an estimated cost of between £8.1 

million and £12.6 million. 

6.43 The highway improvements as part of the DERA development are likely to be initially 

funded by the developer, for example, the developer would be expected to fully fund 

the initial capital cost of the new bus service. There is however currently no mechanism 

in place to ensure that the longer term revenue costs of such services/improvements 

are met by the developer. For example, it would be unreasonable to expect the 

developer to pay for the on going running costs of the proposed bus service. As a 

result, there is a potential funding shortfall. 

6.44 It is envisaged that any highway improvements which may come forward as a result of 

development at RHUL would be funded by the University. 

6.45 The table below summarises the schemes expected to come forward over the plan 

period, their estimated costs where known, and the key providers. 

Funding 

ID 

Description 

Estimated 

Cost 

Key 

Provider(s) 

IDPF014 Works to Runnymede roundabout £5 million SCC 

IDPF015 

IDPF016 

IDPF017 

IDPF018 

IDPF019 

Highway improvements at Egham 

High Street/Church Road Egham £150,000 SCC 

Road safety scheme at Whitehall 

Lane, Egham £3,000 SCC 

£15,000 

(road 

closure 

Wapshott Road road safety scheme option) 

£75,000 

SCC 

(traffic 

calming 

option) 

Englefield Green and Eghamcontrolled 

parking zones £100,000* SCC 

Widening of High Street and Station 

Road, adjustment to Church Road 

and Crouch Oak Lane, Addlestone 

£1,500,000* SCC 

IDPF020 

IDPF021 

A317 St Peter’s Way-dedicated M25 

lane proposed (feasibility and design 

only) 

Safety improvements at A318 

Chertsey Road, on approach to 

Addlestone Moor roundabout 

£5,000 

SCC 

£11,500 SCC 

Page | 59 


IDPF022 

IDPF023 

IDPF024 

IDPF025 

Road safety scheme at Guildford 

Road/St. Peters Way £20,000 SCC 

Lyne Crossing Road/Bridge 

Lane/Lyne Lane-safety 

improvements proposed 

Highway improvements at Chobham 

Lane/Burma Road, Longcross; 

Carriageway widening at roundabout 

to increase capacity 

£10,000 SCC 

Unknown 

Developer 

Chobham Lane, Longcross: new 

roundabout to serve the DERA site Unknown Developer 

IDPF026 

IDPF027 

Highway improvements at Trumps 

Green Road/Wellington Avenue, 

Longcross; Signalisation of existing 

priority T-junction 

Works to Staines upon Thames 

bridge 

TOTAL COST 

Unknown 

Between 

£8.1 million 

and £12.6 

million 

In excess of 

£14,914,500 

Developer 

SCC 

*estimated early costings which are subject to change as proposals progress through 

consultation and/or detailed design 


6.46 Risk ID IDPR007, as with IDPR004, relates to the production of an effective and robust 

sustainable transport strategy for the Borough. Again, it is acknowledged that such a 

strategy might not be achieved over the plan period. As a result, congestion on the 

non-strategic road network could increase to an unacceptable level. This could have a 

knock on effect for congestion on the strategic road network and could reduce the 

desirability of the Borough for residents and businesses to live in and operate from. It is 

likely that this could have implications for economic growth within the Borough. The 

likelihood of Risk IDPR007 occurring is considered high, given the fact that to date, and 

in spite of numerous transport strategies and company travel plans being in place, the 

effect of congestion across the Borough appears to continue to increase. The severity 

of this risk is also considered to be high. 

6.47 Risk ID IDPR008 is concerned with the affects of accelerated climate change on the 

ability of the network to function to capacity, as a result of adaptation inaction on the 

part of the network provider/users. This is a recognised and credible universal risk to 

this type of infrastructure and one that the Council has limited control over. The 

probability of recurring disruption to the network as a result of extreme weather events 

is considered medium given the fact that events such as snow or heavy rain generally 

presents more on the non-strategic road network than the strategic network. The 

severity is considered to be high. 

6.48 The impact that Runnymede's Local Plan will have on the non-SRN is being assessed 

in the SCC TIA 2012 (yet to be issued). It is likely that the TIA will confirm that any 

increase in traffic as a result of implementation of the Local Plan will not significantly 

affect the non-SRN. The Surrey County Council Technical Note entitled ‘transport 

measures to support growth identified in the Runnymede Borough Core Strategy’ (June 

2012), provides details of how the County Council seek to target congestion and road 

safety over the plan period. 

6.49 Cumulatively, it is likely that specific elevations in traffic from developments such as 

DERA (LP01, LP02, and LP08), would in combination with similar developments in 

Page | 60 


Runnymede and its surrounding areas result in an overall increase in additional traffic 

and associated congestion on the non strategic road network. It is likely however that 

the TIA will conclude that any potential increase will not cause a material increase in 

traffic flow on the network or at M25 Junctions 11 and 12. As such, the Local Plan will 

not result in an unacceptable level of congestion at these junctions. The risk of 

IDPR009 is therefore considered to be low, and the severity is considered to be 

medium. 

6.50 Three risks were identified which are summarised in the table below. 

Conclusion 


IDPR007 

IDPR008 

IDPR009 

Failure to achieve sustainable 

transport strategy 

Effect of climate change on network 

capacity 

Cumulative impact on SRN M25 

J11 and 12 

High 

Medium 

Low 

High 

High 

Medium 

6.51 Development proposals over the course of the Local Plan are likely to place additional 

pressure on the non-strategic road network that serves the Borough. With the 

exception of some localised issues (in this regard, the County Council has indicated 

that it would be desirable to have some improvements to the network that will address 

safety and localised congestion over the plan period), it is highly likely that the TIA 

2012 will conclude that the overall increase in traffic growth over the plan period within 

Runnymede, in combination with other similar developments will not significantly affect 

this infrastructures capacity. Therefore, although congestion is likely to increase at 

peak hours, the distribution of new development across the Borough over the plan 

period (including that being proposed for the DERA site) is unlikely to affect this 

conclusion. The preliminary conclusions which have been drawn in this chapter will 

however need to be confirmed by the TIA. 

6.52 Of the three identified risks identified above, IDPR007 is likely to be the only one that 

the Borough could reasonably influence as the other risks are outside the Council’s 

control. 

Rail infrastructure 


6.53 The majority of rail infrastructure is the responsibility of Network Rail, with services 

being provided by Train Operating Companies (TOC’s) under franchise agreements 

with the Department for Transport (DfT). Runnymede has 6 railway stations: 

Addlestone, Chertsey, Virginia Water, Egham, Byfleet and New Haw, and, Longcross. 

All of these stations are believed to be leased from Network Rail by South West Trains 

(See Figure 15). 

Page | 61 


6.54 All of the stations in the Borough provide regular daily commuter services (with the 

exception of Longcross which has a more limited offering). Longcross, Egham and 

Figure 15 - Runnymede's Rail Network 

Virginia Water stations are on the main line from Reading to London Waterloo. The 

service offered at Longcross Station to Reading, Ascot and Virginia Water Stations is 

less frequent on weekdays than from the other stations and there is no service offered 

at weekends. 

6.55 Byfleet and New Haw station is located on the main line to Waterloo via Surbiton. 

Going in the opposite direction, this line provides access to Woking and various other 

locations in the south (Basingstoke, Guildford, Southampton, Havant, and Portsmouth 

for example). 

6.56 Chertsey and Addlestone stations are situated on a branch line linking these two main 

lines and offer a regular service to Virginia Water and Weybridge. 

6.57 Addlestone, Chertsey, and Egham train stations are centrally located in their respective 

town centres. Longcross Station is located at the northern boundary of the DERA site. 

Virginia Water and Byfleet and New Haw stations also occupy out of centre locations 

although they are both located in close proximity to built up areas comprising a mixture 

of uses. 

6.58 All train lines running through the Borough are on the South West Trains mainline 

route. The South West Mainline (SWML) is one of the busiest and most congested 

routes on the network. It serves a major commuter area as well as providing long 

distance services to London Waterloo. The level of demand for services across the 

SWML increased by 22% between 2001 and 2007. Commuter traffic in particular rose 

by around 20% over the same period, leading to frequent overcrowding 22 . 

22 

Network Rail Route Plans 2007-Route 3 

Page | 62 


6.59 In Runnymede, 2,516 people were reported to travel to work by train in 2001 23 .This 

equates to a higher than average percentage (when contrasted with England as a 

whole) and is considered to reflect the accessibility of train stations in the Borough. 

6.60 Table 15 below shows the usage of the Borough’s stations between 2002-2011. The 

figures show that usage of all the stations within the Borough has increased 

substantially between the period of 2002 and 2011 (between 48.8% and 365%). This 

high train usage correlates with the findings of the SWML Route Utilisation Study 

carried out in 2006. This study covered services running out of Waterloo to Surrey. 

Even at this time, it was identified that there were times in the high peak (0830 – 0845) 

when there were 20% passengers in excess of capacity (PIXC), again tying in with the 

above average train usage of Surrey (and Runnymede) commuters. 

Table 9-station usage in the Borough 2002-2011 

Station 

Addleston 

e 

Annual 

usage 

2002-03 

174,214 

Annual 

usage 

2004-05 

Annual 

usage 

2005-06 

Annual 

usage 

2006-07 

Annual 

usage 

2007-08 

Annual 

usage 

2008-09 

Annual 

usage 

2009-10 

Annual 

usage 

2010-11 

213,204 238,418 286,262 387,906 402,728 391,926 378,412 

Change 

2002- 

2011 

+117.2 

% 

Chertsey 

279,661 

360,716 419,259 430,757 587,986 632,210 604,808 612,488 +119% 

Virginia 

Water 

335,781 396,626 426,295 452,845 520,911 547,266 533,520 544,846 +62.3% 

Egham 

1,184,035 

1,475,611 1,507,099 1,611,558 2,023,075 2,134,388 2,072,946 2,069,282 +74.8% 

Byfleet 

and New 

Haw 

262,141 300,039 282,560 320,676 409,799 417,098 384,168 390,188 +48.8% 

Longcross 

2,298 

266 346 2,637 5,353 7,596 9,650 10,686 +365% 

Total 2,238,130 2,746,462 2,873,977 3,104,735 3,935,030 4,141,286 3,997,018 4,005,902 +79% 

source: Office for Rail Regulations 2009 

6.61 Egham Station is the most frequently used of all the stations in the Borough. The 

consistently high usage of this station is likely to be in part due to the student 

population of RHUL who generally reside in the Egham and Englefield Green areas. 


6.62 Local Plan location policies LP01-LP08 confirm the forecasted quantity and general 

location of new development in the Borough over the plan period. These policies 

conclude that development would largely be focussed in the Borough’s Urban Areas 

and at the DERA site in Longcross. Growth is also envisaged at RHUL. Development in 

all of these areas over the plan period is likely to increase the number of residents, 

students and commuters in the Borough using the rail network. 



car. Such a policy is likely to focus on encouraging a greater use of the rail 

infrastructure in the Borough. 

23 

census 2001 

Page | 63 


6.64 Across Surrey, it is expected that the number of rail trips will rise by some 19% 

between 2005 and 2026 and approximately 15% over this same period in 

Runnymede. 24 Assuming that the 15% increase in rail trips is applicable to the inflow 

numbers, this would represent a new inflow of 5,614 per day. 

6.65 The effects that development in Surrey will have over the coming years on the rail 

network are being assessed currently by SCC (who has commissioned ARUP). The 

results will be published in the Surrey Rail Strategy (expected publication date- 

Summer 2013). 

6.66 It is also considered noteworthy that RHUL has aspirations to expand over the plan 

period. Some growth on the University campus would be allowed for by Local Plan 

(LP05) and would in all likelihood increase the use of Egham Railway Station. 

6.67 The majority of planned development (with accompanying increase in population) over 

the plan period will be concentrated at the former DERA site (where 1500 units are 

expected, plus 80,000 m2 of commercial development). The remainder of the 

forecasted development is expected to come forward in the Borough’s Urban Areas 

(see: Table 4). 

6.68 The Local Plan expects major new developments (for example at the former DERA 

site) to provide highway improvements to help mitigate against the transportation 

impacts that such developments generate. 


6.69 By 2017, it is anticipated that overall demand at Waterloo will exceed total capacity by 

around 9,000 people per am peak (11%). Improvements to Waterloo Station are 

therefore planned to include lengthening of platforms to ease overcrowding (cost of 

works estimated at some £350 million) 25 . 

6.70 The introduction of the Railway Communications System (RCS) is also expected to be 

rolled out countrywide. This system will provide secure communication between drivers 

and signallers across Britain’s entire passenger rail network – even in cuttings and 

tunnels. This system is currently being installed and will be effective from Summer 

2014 (Network Rail website). 

6.71 The only known works planned to any of the stations in the Borough are at Longcross 

Station. As part of the redevelopment of the former DERA site, improvements to this 

station are proposed which would consist of the provision of a new footbridge and ramp 

or refit/improvements to the exiting footbridge with ramp, provision of a new modular 

station building, an upgrade of station lighting, resurfacing of the platforms, two new 

waiting shelters, upgrading of station signage, ten platform benches, upgraded CCTV 

cameras and provision for appropriate disabled access to comply with Network Rail 

standards. Current stopping frequency will not be changed. 


6.72 Development at DERA: The rail improvements proposed as part of the DERA 

development will be secured as part of the development. The cost of these works are 

unknown. 

6.73 No other schemes within the Borough have been identified which could require 

additional funding. Whilst AIRTRACK was previously proposed, this scheme was 

shelved in April 2011. 

24 

Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Study (Jun 2009) 

25 

Department of Transport press release, July 2012. 

Page | 64 


Funding 

ID 

IDPF028 


Description 

Rail improvements at Longcross 

Station to support the development 

at the former DERA site 

Estimated 

Cost 

unknown 

Key 

Provider(s) 

South West 

Trains, 

Developer 

6.74 The main risk to the capacity [IDPR010] of this infrastructure is considered to be 

congestion caused by a surge in users over the plan period (without necessary 

measures in place to deal with increased users being put in place). This would lead to 

severe overcrowding, particularly on the already congested commuter trains. This could 

impact on the economy if commuters are discouraged from accessing trains to bring 

them into, or take them out of the Borough. The probability of this risk being realised is 

considered to be high. This is due, in part, to the considerable time lag in bringing 

measures to increase capacity forward. The severity is also considered to be high as 

this scenario would have a knock on effect, and cumulative impact on both the SRN 

and non-SNR. This is because the implication of IDPR010 is people resorting to using 

their cars to travel, increasing congestion on the roads within the Borough. It is 

considered however that improvements to rail services and enhancements to rail 

facilities (such as the proposals at London Waterloo) would reduce the likelihood of 

such an event occurring. 

Conclusion 


IDPR010 

Congestion caused by a surge in 

demand with no mitigation in place 

6.75 Development proposals over the plan period are likely to place some additional 

pressure on the rail infrastructure within the Borough. An assessment of the cumulative 

effects of proposed development in Surrey over the coming years on the rail network is 

currently being undertaken by SCC. This will identify where enhancements to services 

and facilities are required. Preparing for an increase in demand for rail services is 

ultimately however considered to fall outside the remit of the Council. 

Bus Network 

Existing provision 

6.76 In terms of transport modal choice, it is evident from the data reported elsewhere in the 

IDP that car use is the preferred mode within the Borough (see: Table 7 and Figure 13). 

According to the National Travel Survey 2010, between 1995/97 and 2010 there was a 

14% drop in number of trips per person per year by bus outside London. This figure 

corresponds with a general rise in traffic over a similar period 26 . 

6.77 There are a number of commercial bus service providers operating services which run 

within or through the Borough of Runnymede. People aged 60 or over and the disabled 

are eligible for free bus passes for off-peak travel in Runnymede (as they are in Surrey 

as a whole). There are 319 bus stops in the Borough, although the greatest 

concentrations of bus stops are located in the Borough’s Urban Areas. Specifically, 13 

commercial bus services run within or through the Borough, 8 of which are defined as 

frequent (defined by Surrey Council as services which operate at least once an hour, 5 

days a week, all year round). 

6.78 Services operate to most towns and villages within the Borough although service 

provision varies for different areas. Bus timetable information for different parts of the 

High 

High 

26 

See DfT Road Transport Forecasts 2011 

Page | 65 


Borough is presented in Table 16 below. Rowtown, Byfleet, Woodham, Thorpe and 

Virginia Water appear to not benefit from bus services on a Sunday. Lyne is only 

served by a bus service on weekdays. Other areas of the Borough have a lack of 

choice of services for example New Haw, although the service which runs through New 

Haw runs 7 days a week and on public holidays. Evening services do not generally run 

after 8pm although some services end earlier than this. 

6.79 Local bus services were last reviewed in the Borough by Surrey County Council in 

2009. Currently, Surrey County Council subsidises three out of four of the 250 services 

in Surrey because they are not commercially viable for bus operators. 

6.80 In addition to the commercial services which serve the Borough, the Peterbus runs on 4 

different routes (three of which run through the Borough) at regular times Mondays to 

Fridays inclusive. These buses take passengers to and from St Peter’s Hospital to/from 

various places within and outside the Borough. 

Table 10 - Bus Timetable Information 

Area 

Weekday 

services 

Saturday 

service 

Sunday 

service 

Bank holiday 

service 

Addlestone 51, 446, 461 51, 446, 461 446, 461 446 

Rowtown 456, 593 459 No No 

Ottershaw 446, 461, 557, 

593 

446, 461, 557 446, 461 446 

New Haw 446 446 446 446 

Byfleet 51 51 No No 

Woodham 459, 593 459 No No 

Lyne 593 No No No 

Chertsey 51, 446, 557, 593 51, 446, 557 446 446 

Thorpe 566/567 566/567 No No 

Egham Hythe 71, 441 71, 441 71, 441 71 

Pooley Green 71, 441 71, 441 71, 441 71 

Virginia Water 500, 566/567 500, 566/567 No No 

Englefield 

Green 

Egham 51, 71, 441, 500, 

566/567 

71, 441 71, 441 71, 441 71 

51, 71, 441, 

500, 566/567 

Information obtained from the Surrey County Council website 

71, 441 71 

6.81 The Runnymede Business Partnership Yellow School Bus scheme operated by First 

Group was introduced in the Borough in February 2002 as part of the wider 

Runnymede School Travel Initiative (RSTI). This scheme aims to reduce traffic 

congestion in the Borough and provide a safe journey to school for children. The 

scheme started with four buses carrying 120 students. It was estimated in 2003 that the 

buses were saving approximately 150,000 car journeys per year 27 . Given the strong 

demand, since introduction, the number of buses operated as part of the scheme has 

risen to seven. 

27 

Evaluation of Yellow Bus pilots, Steer Davies Gleave, 2003. 

Page | 66 


6.82 These seven buses carry 500 students to and from four secondary schools in the 

Borough (Magna Carta School, Fulbrook School, Salesian Roman Catholic School, and 

Jubilee International High School). In 2009 it was calculated that each year, the yellow 

bus service reduces carbon emissions by approximately 355 tonnes 28 . The service is 

funded by the fares collected by students, S106 money and business sponsorship. 


6.83 It is estimated that over the plan period 2011 – 2026, at least 2415 new residential units 

will be provided in the Borough within the general locations as set out in Table 8. New 

housing developments over the plan period are likely to correlate with a general 

increase in bus passengers. 


location policies in the Local Plan states that it will be sought to reduce reliance on the 

private car. Such a policy is likely to focus, in part, on encouraging a greater use of the 

bus infrastructure in the Borough. Increasing use of alternative modes of transport to 

the car and easing congestion will become even more important in the light of 

increased housing numbers. Furthermore, a greater number of passengers (generated 

by an increase in the population) could increase patronage and assist with the viability 

of some services. 



dwellings are proposed) and in the Borough’s Urban Areas. Major new developments 

such as DERA generally make provision for public transport including connection to 

bus networks. It is reasonable to assume that such provision is likely to be included in 

any subsequent proposals going forward at the former DERA site. 


6.86 Surrey County Council, as the main operator of the bus network, describes its principal 

aim in its Local Bus Strategy (2011) as: “To deliver and maintain an effective, safe and 

sustainable bus network in Surrey.” In order to meet this aim, it proposes to: 

• Focus on improvements to bus punctuality and journey time reliability through 

Bus Punctuality Partnerships 

• Restructure the supported bus service network to deliver better value for 

money and a better service for passengers 

• Continue support for Park & Ride in Guildford 

• Coordinate and support community transport and demand responsive 

transport provision in areas where it is more effective and sustainable than 

regular bus services 

• Work with partners to ensure that passenger information and infrastructure is 

delivered in a cost effective manner 

6.87 It is unclear at present if the Local Bus Strategy will have an affect on network capacity. 

6.88 The only specific schemes which are known to be proposed by Surrey CC at the 

current time are: 

• bus stop improvements to the Rowtown junction by 2015. 

• Introduction of a bus service in the Causeway employment area by 2015. 

28 

Yellow Bus Carbon Trading Scheme information 2009 

Page | 67 


6.89 In addition, the Egham Sustainable Transport package is proposed by Surrey County 

Council which amongst other measures will seek to: 

• provide bus priority and traffic management measures for three routes at up 

to 27 locations 

• make bus stops accessible and dwell improvements at up to 105 stops on 

these routes 

• provide multi-modal transport hubs at two key locations 

• improve promotion of bus to train interchange opportunities 

• provide Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) displays at a minimum of 

five key stop pairs and SMS stop plates at all stops within the area 

• develop a smartcard product and any associated technological infrastructure 

and support, to allow travel on all bus routes. 

6.90 As part of the Egham Sustainable Transport package, cycle parking will also be 

installed at bus stops which are located close to formal cycle routes, so that they 

become multi-modal transport hubs. SCC considers that improving bus patronage on 

routes to Heathrow and adjacent areas will support economic growth in Surrey. The 

bus routes would connect people to Heathrow and employment sites in Surrey, 

including Weybridge and Egham. 

6.91 In addition, as part of the development at the former DERA site, an additional bus 

service (s) will need to be provided. It is expected that the initial capital cost of the 

additional service(s) will be met by the developer, although there is currently no 

mechanism in place to ensure that the longer term revenue costs are met by the 

developer. It is considered unreasonable to expect the developer to pay for the ongoing 

running costs of the bus service. As a result, there is a potential funding shortfall in this 

regard. 

6.92 The Council also has an aspiration to continue running the Runnymede Yellow Bus 

service. 


6.93 The Runnymede Business Partnership Yellow School Bus scheme operated by First 

Group will continue to require funding to survive over the plan period. It is estimated 

that a subsidy of at least £200,000 will be required to run the service annually from 

2014. This figure will increase on an annual basis with inflation. 

6.94 As noted in the above section, the cost of additional service(s) from the former DERA 

site is expected to be initially be met by the developer although the funding source(s) 

for the long term running of such a service(s) has not yet been identified. 

6.95 The bus stop improvements at the Rowtown junction, and the bus service which is 

proposed to be introduced in the Causeway Employment Area are proposed to be 

funded by developer contributions although the actual cost of providing these schemes 

is unknown. 

6.96 The Egham Sustainable Transport package is estimated to cost in the region of £3.7 

million and work is proposed to commence in 2015. The funding sources can be seen 

in the table below: 

Page | 68 


Funding 

ID 

IDPF029 

IDPF030 

IDPF031 

IDPF032 

IDPF033 


Description 

Introduction of a bus service in the 

Causeway Employment Area 

Continued running of the yellow bus 

scheme 

Egham Sustainable Transport 

package 

Bus stop improvements at the 

Rowtown junction 

Additional bus service as part of 

DERA development 

Estimated 

Cost 

£120,000 

per 

annum 

£200,000 

+ per 

annum 

£3.7 

million 

£61,000 

In excess 

of £5 

million for 

a period of 

10 years 

Key 

Provider(s) 

Unknown 

RBC, First 

Group 

SCC/ RBC/ 

Spelthorne 

BC 

Developer 

funded 

Developer, 

SCC 

initially 

6.97 The main risk [IDPR011] to this infrastructure’s capacity relates to funding. A number of 

services in the Borough are subsidised by funding from Surrey County Council. There 

is no guarantee that these subsidies will continue, and in the face of public sector cuts, 

it seems unlikely that funding for subsidised services will be available in the short term 

at least. 

6.98 The second key risk [IDPR012] relates to congestion on the roads affecting the 

efficiency of bus services in the Borough, making them an undesirable choice for 

residents and commuters. Whilst congestion may affect the services at peak times 

however, it is considered that outside of peak times, congestion is unlikely to affect the 

services significantly, even with the uplift in development proposed over the plan 

period. 

6.99 On balance, it is considered that the commitment of SP09 to encourage people to use 

more sustainable modes of transport would reduce the likelihood of such an event 

occurring. 

Conclusion 


IDPR011 Service funding cuts High High 

IDPR012 Non-SRN Congestion High Medium 

6.100 New development over the plan period is likely to contribute to the need for additional 

bus services in appropriate circumstances (for example at the former DERA site and in 

the Causeway employment area). Table 11 provides an influence summary against the 

five dimensions of affecting travel choice that impact on this particular type of transport 

infrastructure. 

Page | 69 


Table 11 - Five Dimensions of Travel Choices 

Dimension Affecting 

Travel Choice 

Description 

Plan/Strategy 

Affect 

Network 

Capacity 

Impact 

Whether to travel 

(generation/frequency) 

Increasing population resulting in 

a potentially increased number of 

individuals deciding to travel. 

Yes 

Yes 

Where to travel to 

(destination) 

Determined by location of jobs, 

schools, shops, and leisure 

facilities. 

Yes 

No 

Which mode to travel 

by (mode choice) 

Traveller takes account of 

feasibility and costs (including 

time and monetary comparisons / 

preferences) of travelling by 

different modes. 

No 

Yes 

What time to travel 

Traveller takes account of 

feasibility and costs (including 


preferences) of travelling by at 

different times of the day, 

particularly during peak and offpeak 

periods. 

No 

Yes 

Which route to take 

(assignment) 

Traveller takes into account the 


preferences relating to the 

number of different feasible routes 

available. 

No 

Yes 

6.101 At the current time, a number of services in the Borough are supported by funding from 

Surrey County Council and indeed, the bus network infrastructure in Surrey generally is 

dependant on subsidies from Surrey County Council. There is no guarantee that these 

subsidies will continue. As such, there is a need to ensure that new development is not 

solely reliant on only peripheral network service. Should demand for public transport 

increase due to the growth in population, enhancement of the locations the network 

covers, and proves to be a feasible choice for travellers over the plan period, it would 

be expected that private sector providers would deliver services to meet any growth in 

demand. 

Walking and Cycling 


6.102 There has been extensive investment in the Borough by both Surrey County Council 

and Runnymede Borough Council into what is becoming an extensive cycle route 

network throughout Surrey. Cycle routes in Runnymede are connected with the rest of 

the cycle network throughout Surrey and the UK. Providing these pathways as an 

alternative form of transport is an important step in promoting sustainable transport. 

6.103 National Cycle Network Route 4 and 223 are accessible from the Borough. The 

Borough also contains a number of cycle routes and an extensive network of footpaths/ 

pedestrian routes. 

6.104 In 2002 as part of the Runnymede School Travel Initiative, 12 new cycle shelters were 

installed at 6 schools within the Borough providing secure, covered parking for 500 

cycles. 

Page | 70 



6.105 The location policies in the Local Plan (LPCS); LP01-LP08, confirm where new 

development is expected in the Borough over the plan period. Development would 

largely be focussed in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the former DERA site in 

Longcross. Development in all of these areas over the plan period is likely to increase 

the number of residents and businesses in the Borough. 



car. Such a policy is likely to encourage greater cycling and walking opportunities in the 


6.107 The Surrey County Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan encourages Local 

planning policies to reflect and support the aims of their Plan, in particular by securing 

developer contributions for local rights of way improvements. 

Future Provision 

6.108 The Surrey County Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan (2007) states that in 

Surrey, proposed built development is the single biggest threat to the rights of way 

network, both through the actual loss of paths and their incorporation into estate roads. 

Development does however offer many opportunities, both for the creation of new 

routes and the enhancement of existing ones. 

6.109 When considering future provision more generally, Surrey County Council has stated in 

its Rights of Way Improvement Plan that it aims to improve accessibility, connectivity 

and quality across the rights of way network. This document also states that Surrey 

County Council: 

• will use its powers under the Highways Act to create and divert public rights 

of way to improve connectivity. 

• is committed to maintaining the rights of way network to a basic minimum 

standard in accordance with its legal duty, as set out in the Rights of Way 

Statement for Surrey. 

6.110 In addition, one of the objectives of the Surrey Transport Plan (April 2011) is to 

increase the proportion of travel by sustainable modes such as walking and cycling. 

6.111 In particular, within the Borough, Surrey CC proposes to create a new multi-user route 

along the northern boundary of the former DERA site from the station to Chobham 

Lane (works to include the laying of an all weather surface and signing). 

6.112 The creation of a multi-user route from the A.320 through Homewood Park to Stonehill 

Road (length 900m) is also proposed (works to include the laying of an all weather 

surface and signing). 

6.113 In addition, the Egham Sustainable Transport Package is proposed by Surrey CC 

which contains a package of 29 cycling and walking infrastructure measures in 

Runnymede Borough, concentrating on railway line crossing points that could be 

crossed easily by walking or cycling. The measures include provision of two cutthroughs, 

conversion of three pelican crossings to toucan crossings, provision of a new 

toucan crossing, four footbridges with wheeling ramps for cycles, a link to a cycle track, 

subway resurfacing, widening of five footways, conversion of four footways to shared 

use, refreshing of shared use lining and logos, tarmac widening of approaches to a 

subway and removal of barriers, footway clearance, improvement of two pedestrian 

crossings, conversion of a cycle track and conversion of road cushions to speed tables, 

cycle route signing Egham-wide and cycle storage improvements at Egham Station. 

Page | 71 


6.114 Surrey CC advise that a benefit of the proposed improvements to the cycle network in 

the Egham area is the impact it would have on traffic congestion. Peak hour congestion 

in the Egham area is a serious impediment to future economic activity. Promoting 

economic activity is an important consideration in the Local Plan being prepared for the 

Borough. The Local Plan looks forward to the year 2026 and seeks to accommodate 

significant growth for commercial, retail and residential development. Simply adding 

further traffic to an overloaded network pinch point will not form the basis of good 

planning. Action is needed to unlock further growth potential by implementing this 

scheme and this can be aided by offering an alternative form of sustainable transport 

for those who live, work and visit the area. If people are to be encouraged to use a 

cycle network it must be comprehensive, attractive, and safe. This proposal addresses 

these issues. 

6.115 The following smaller schemes are also proposed across the Borough by SCC: 

• Wapshott Road/ Bowes Road/ St Pauls/, Hythe, pedestrian and cyclists 

improvements proposed by 2017 

• Langton Way to Crouch Oak-pedestrian and cyclists improvements proposed 

by 2015 

• A30 London Road/ St Judes Road-provision of controlled pedestrian facilities 

by 2016 

• Installation of pedestrian crossing at Scotland Bridge Road, Addlestone by 

2017 

• Simplemarsh Road/High Street, Addlestone-pedestrian improvements by 

2016 

• Green Lane, Addlestone-proposed pedestrian crossing by 2015 

• Proposed pedestrian refuge on A318 Chertsey Road/ Green Road, 

Addlestone by 2015 

• Advanced stop lanes on Brighton Road/Crockford Park Road, Addlestone 

(timescales unknown) 

• Advanced stop lanes on Brighton Road, Addlestone (timescales unknown) 

• Proposed cycle track-Green Lane/High Street to Crouch Oak Lane, 

Addlestone (timescales unknown) 

• Holloway Hill, Chertsey-footway improvements by 2017 

• Installation of a pedestrian crossing at Guildford Street, Chertsey by 2015 

• Bridge Road/Weir Road junction, Chertsey-capacity and pedestrian 

improvements by 2017 

• Eastworth Road, Guildford Street, Pycroft Road, Chertsey-cyclist right hand 

turn lane (timescales unknown) 

• Abbots Way, Pycroft, Guildford Street, Chertsey-advanced stop lanes 

(timescales unknown) 

• Guildford Street, Chertsey-additional signage (timescales unknown) 

• Drill Hall Road/ Heriot Road, Chertsey-link between the two roads (timescales 

unknown) 

• Guildford Street, Eastworth Road to Curfew Bell Road, Chertsey-northbound 

cycle track (timescales unknown) 

Page | 72 


• Windsor Street into Gogmore Lane, Chertsey-provision of a cycle gap (both 

directions) (timescales unknown) 

• Alwyns Lane, Chertsey- allow contraflow cycling (timescales unknown) 

• Rowtown junction- cycleway improvements by 2015 

• Introduction of controlled pedestrian facilities at A30 London 

Road/Christchurch Road, Virginia Water (timescales unknown) 


6.116 The estimated costs and key providers of all of the identified projects are outlined in the 

table below: 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF031 

IDPF034 

IDPF035 

IDPF036 

IDPF037 

IDPF038 

IDPF039 

IDPF040 

IDPF041 

IDPF042 

IDPF043 

IDPF044 

IDPF045 

IDPF046 

IDPF047 

IDPF048 

Description 

Egham Sustainable Transport 

Package 

Wapshott Road/ Bowes Road/ St 

Pauls/, Hythe, pedestrian and 

cyclists improvements 

Langton Way to Crouch Oakpedestrian 

and cyclists 

improvements 

A30 London Road/ St Judes Roadprovision 

of controlled pedestrian 

facilities 

Installation of pedestrian crossing at 

Scotland Bridge Road, Addlestone 

Simplemarsh Road/High Street, 

Addlestone-pedestrian improvements 

Green Lane, Addlestone-proposed 

pedestrian crossing 

Proposed pedestrian refuge on A318 

Chertsey Road/ Green Road, 

Addlestone 

Advanced stop lanes on Brighton 

Road/Crockford Park Road, 

Addlestone 

Advanced stop lanes on Brighton 

Road, Addlestone 

Proposed cycle track-Green 

Lane/High Street to Crouch Oak 

Lane, Addlestone 

Holloway Hill, Chertsey-footway 

improvements 

Installation of a pedestrian crossing 

at Guildford Street, Chertsey 

Bridge Road/Weir Road junction, 

Chertsey-capacity and pedestrian 

improvements 

Eastworth Road, Guildford Street, 

Pycroft Road, Chertsey-cyclist right 

hand turn lane 

Abbots Way, Pycroft, Guildford 

Street, Chertsey-advanced stop 

lanes 

Estimated 

Cost 

Already 

noted in 

buses 

chapter 

Key 

Provider(s) 

SCC/ RBC 

£125,000 SCC 

£62,000 SCC 

£120,000 SCC 

£130,000 SCC 

£20,000 SCC 

£60,000 SCC 

£40,000 SCC 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

SCC 

SCC 

SCC 

£137,000 SCC 

£50,000 SCC 

£130,000 SCC 

Unknown 

Unknown 

SCC 

SCC 

Page | 73 


IDPF049 

IDPF050 

IDPF051 

IDPF052 

IDPF053 

IDPF054 

IDPF055 

IDPF056 

IDPF057 


Guildford Street, Chertsey-additional 

signage 

Drill Hall Road/ Heriot Road, 

Chertsey-link between the two roads 

Guildford Street, Eastworth Road to 

Curfew Bell Road, Chertseynorthbound 

cycle track 

Windsor Street into Gogmore Lane, 

Chertsey-provision of a cycle gap 

(both directions) 

Alwyns Lane, Chertsey- allow 

contraflow cycling 

Rowtown junction- cycleway 

improvements 

Introduction of controlled pedestrian 

facilities at A30 London 

Road/Christchurch Road, Virginia 

Water 

New multi user route along the 

northern boundary of the former 

DERA site 

Creation of multi user route from 

A.320 through Homewood Park to 

Stonehill Road 

TOTAL COST 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

£80,000 

SCC 

SCC 

SCC 

SCC 

SCC 

SCC 

SCC 

£45,000 SCC 

£55,000 SCC 

In excess 

of 

£1,054,000 

6.117 The main risk to this type of infrastructure is cycle routes and footpaths not being 

safeguarded, not being maintained, and the network not being improved upon. Given 

the objectives of the Surrey County Council Rights of Way Plan, the improvements 

proposed by the county council over the plan period to improve cycle and pedestrian 

facilities in the Borough, and the climate change objectives driving the Surrey Transport 

Plan however, this is seen as a low risk over the plan period. 

Conclusion 


IDPR013 

Failure to safeguard, maintain or 

improve existing network 

6.118 New development over the plan period is considered to provide both threats to existing 

footpaths and cycle routes, and rights of way generally, but also opportunities for 

improvements and new provision. Opportunities for improvements and new provision 

should be considered where they arise over the plan period. 

Community transport 


6.119 A number of community transport schemes operate in the Borough. Runnymede 

Borough Council is the biggest provider of community transport and provides the 

‘Runnymede Community Transport Service’. This service provides transport for 

Borough residents who meet one of the following criteria: 

• people over 60 years of age 

Low 

• people of any age with a physical disability or mobility problem 

• people of any age suffering with long or short term ill health 

Low 

Page | 74 


• people of any age with learning difficulties 

• people of any age with mental health issues 

6.120 The Council owns a fleet of 12 minibuses in total which are used for its Transport 

Service. The Council, as part of its community transport service also provides the Diala-ride 

service in the Borough. This is a service for residents of Runnymede with a 

disability who cannot use public transport from/to health centres, shopping, pension 

collection, hospital visiting, day centres, prescription collection, visiting and leisure 

outings. 

6.121 Runnymede Community Transport also provides transport five days a week to the 

Council’s Social Centres for the over 55’s, located across the Borough. 

6.122 The Yellow School Bus is also considered to be a community transport scheme within 

the Borough (again the scheme is run by Runnymede Borough Council). This scheme 

collects and transports children from within Runnymede to a number of schools in the 

Borough (this service has already been discussed in the ‘bus network’ chapter above). 

6.123 In addition, the following organisations also provide community transport in the 

Borough: 


• Addlestone & Ottershaw Good Neighbours: provide either car or minibus 

transport for medical appointments, shopping, pension collection, hospital 

visiting, prescriptions and visiting, 

• Age Concern Runnymede: provide the elderly, or persons with a disability or 

affliction with minibus transport for leisure outings and group hire through 

clubs and community groups in and around the Borough, 

• Care in Egham & District: volunteers provide people in the Egham area who 

are affected by disability, infirmity, family crisis, elderly, emergency or need 

with transport for medical appointments, shopping, pension collection, 

holidays, hospital visiting, prescriptions, visiting and leisure outings. 

• Chertsey Good Neighbours: provide transport for those in need to 

appointments at the doctors, dentist, hospital, etc. for a small donation. 

6.124 The location policies in the Local Plan (LPCS); LP01-LP08, confirm where new 

development is expected in the Borough over the plan period. Development would 

largely be focussed in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the former DERA site in 

Longcross. Development in all of these areas over the plan period is likely to increase 

the number of residents and businesses in the Borough. Given the population trends 

observed where an ageing population is predicted over the plan period, it is considered 

vital to ensure that community transport continues to be accessible for elderly and 

vulnerable people. 


6.125 Surrey County Council is exploring the concept of a Social Enterprise Model for the 

Community Transport sector, which would allow individual operators to join together to 

bid for larger transport contract work. Policies on Community Transport will be further 

developed in an upcoming Community Transport/Demand Responsive Transport 

Strategy. 


6.126 At the current time Surrey County Council subsidise the community transport service 

offered by Runnymede Borough Council (providing £50,000 to the cost of running the 

service each year). 

Page | 75 


6.127 As aforementioned earlier in this report, the Runnymede Yellow Bus service is funded 

by developer contributions, Business sponsorship, and fares. 

6.128 There is no known community transport projects planned in the Borough over the plan 

period which would require funding. 


6.129 Community transport is generally provided by volunteers and charities to the elderly 

and vulnerable people. The two biggest risks to this type of transport provision are: 1) 

the ageing population stretching existing providers beyond capacity coupled with a fall 

in the number of volunteers/ number of charities or organisations providing community 

transport remaining static or decreasing. 2) a decrease in donations/subsidies meaning 

that service provision is reduced/not increased to meet demand. 

6.130 Whilst it is possible that the above scenarios could occur over the plan period, given 

the current range in provision at the current time across the Borough, it is considered 

that the risk of either scenario occurring is low. The capacity and range of different 

services may however need to be reviewed at regular intervals over the plan period so 

it can be assessed whether the risk has increased. 

Conclusion 

6.131 Detailed studies have not been carried out on the usage of community transport in the 

Borough. Without such studies in place, it is difficult to make assumptions as to 

whether there is capacity in this sector to cope with an increase in residents and/or an 

ageing population over the plan period. In addition, there is no guarantee the existing 

services will continue over the plan period. As such, there is a need to ensure that 

development is located in the most sustainable locations in the Borough, close to 

existing facilities and services to assist elderly and vulnerable people living in the 

Borough access the services they need. This approach is advocated by the Council’s 

Local Plan. 

Parking 



IDPR014 Supply failing to meet demand Low Low 

6.132 Runnymede operates 14 pay and display car parks within its boundaries although the 

Arndale Way car park in Egham is soon to be lost due to the granting of the 

Waitrose/Travel Lodge development in 2009. The location of the Council owned car 

parks in the Borough is shown on the map below. In addition to these car parks, there 

are also a number of private car parks across the Borough including those provided at 

Supermarkets. On street parking is also available widely in the Borough. 

6.133 The Council’s Parking Manager has confirmed that Council owned town centre car 

parks are generally well used. The car parks in Englefield Green and Pooley Green are 

not so well used to capacity but have a regular turnover. 

6.134 The Council’s adopted car parking standards set out maximum levels of parking for 

broad classes of development in the Borough. Maximum standards are designed to be 

used as part of a package of measures to promote sustainable transport choices, 

reduce the land-take of development, enable schemes to fit into urban sites, promote 

linked-trips and access to development for those without use of a car and to tackle 

congestion. Both Runnymede Borough Council and Surrey County Council have 

adopted parking standards. 

Page | 76 



6.135 The location policies in the Local Plan; LP01-LP08, confirm where new development is 

expected in the Borough over the plan period. Development would largely be focussed 

in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the former DERA site in Longcross. Development 

in all of these areas over the plan period is likely to increase the number of residents 

and businesses in the Borough. 



car and as such the demand for high levels of new car parking provision within the 

Borough. Car parking standards for various types of new development will be reviewed 

as part of the Local Plan process. 


6.137 The County Council has preferred strategies to try and manage parking in built up 

areas around the County, improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of their civil 

parking 29 . 

6.138 There is however no known plans to increase the capacity of existing car parks in the 

Borough over the plan period. The Council owned Bourne Car Park is however 

advertised for disposal. The loss of this site would reduce public car parking provision 

in Virginia Water. 


6.139 As there are no known schemes planned for implementation over the plan period, the 

costs and funding sources do not require consideration. 


6.140 Should residents and commuters in the Borough not move to using more sustainable 

modes of transport, the uplift in development proposed under the plan period will only 

increase the number of cars in the Borough. This is likely to increase demand for public 

car parking as well increasing on street parking in Urban Centres in particular. 

6.141 Whilst there is a clear risk that this could happen during the plan period, there would be 

scope for the Surrey County Council to review its parking strategy and move to 

residents parking areas for example should parking within the Borough rise to 

unacceptable levels. 

Conclusion 


IDPR015 

Increased number of cars increasing 

demand for car parking 

Medium 

6.142 Overall, new development over the plan period, in particular increases in density in 

existing urban areas has the potential to exacerbate existing parking problems where 

they exist. As such, the Local Plan will need to carefully consider parking standards for 

new development and ensure that robust sustainable transport policies are in place to 

discourage an over-reliance on the private car. 

Low 

29 

A car parking strategy for Surrey, March 2011 

Page | 77 


Chapter 7. Health 

Introduction 

7.1 This chapter considers the infrastructure designation covering Health, and the following 

topics: 

• Primary Healthcare – relates to services provided by GPs, Dentists, 

Pharmacists, and Opticians ; 

• Secondary Healthcare – relates to acute health services provided by 

Hospitals; and, 

• Private Healthcare, Nursing, and Residential Care – relates to other 

health services including services provided for adults and the elderly. 

7.2 Health infrastructure capacity is affected by a number of variables that can change 

rapidly across the delivery space such as health outbreaks or major accidents. 

Alternatively, longer-term capacity is affected by changes in population demographics 

across the Borough including increases in birth rates and increased in the life 

expectancy impact all infrastructure service areas. 

7.3 In Runnymede birth rates have varied from a low point reached in 2001. Births per 

annum to 2008 have increased by 162 from the 2001 low point. This is an increase of 

20%. Births are projected to increase based on ONS population estimates and 

projected fertility rates. 

7.4 Surrey's population (and Runnymede’s as a Borough) is projected to rise over the 

coming decade, with notable increases in the number of older people. This will have a 

major impact on service planning, as older people are more likely to experience 

disability and long-term conditions. Part of the challenge will be to ensure the right 

preventative and support services are in place so older people can remain independent 

for as long as possible (JSNA Summary 2011). 

7.5 The Runnymede Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) shows that when 

compared to the population of England as a whole, Runnymede has a lower incidence 

of hypertension, diabetes, and cancer. The incidence of all cancers in Surrey is higher 

than that of England and the same as the South East Coast SHA (Strategic Health 

Authority). The higher incidence could be due to people living longer with cancer in 

Surrey. Runnymede has the highest incidence in the County for oesophageal, skin, 

lung and cervical cancers. 

7.6 Runnymede also has the 2nd highest prevalence of diabetes in Surrey and has higher 

rates of obesity in young adults (between the ages of 16 and 34) than the Surrey 

average. In terms of child obesity, within Surrey for 2009/10 Runnymede had lower 

levels of childhood obesity than the majority of other Surrey Boroughs (reception and 

year 6 analysed for JSNA). The JSNA reports that there is a strong positive 

relationship between deprivation and obesity incidence for children in Reception and 

Year 6. 

Primary Healthcare 


7.7 Primary healthcare refers to services provided by GP practices, dental practices, 

community pharmacies and high street optometrists. About 90% of people’s contact 

with the NHS is through these services. NHS Surrey provides healthcare to the 

residents of Runnymede through a network of these practices and clinics throughout 

the Borough. 

7.8 Within Runnymede a separate group; Surrey Community Health, runs community 

health services e.g. district and school nursing, health visiting and therapy services. 

Page | 78 


7.9 The average for England in terms of patients per GP surgery is approximately 6500 

(NHS information centre, October 2008) and around the Surrey average for patients 

per GP is 1585 (SURREYi.gov.uk). In Runnymede, only 4 of the practices are over the 

average surgery size, although 5 of the 9 GP practices have a greater patient to GP 

ratio than the Surrey average. This may be indicative of the low number of doctors at a 

number of the existing surgeries. 

7.10 Specifically, information from SURREYi.gov.uk, and the NHS choices website suggests 

that both of the GP practices in Chertsey and the GP practice in Addlestone have 

capacity for additional patients and would still be below the Surrey average (in terms of 

number of patients per GP). In Virginia Water, Ottershaw, Staines (the part of which 

lies within the Borough) and Egham, all of the GP practices have an above average 

patient to GP ratio. In Egham, Virginia Water and Staines, the GP practices each have 

over 2000 patients per doctor. 

7.11 A range of dental practices are provided, predominantly in the Borough’s urban 

centres. Community pharmacies and high street optometrists are also located 

throughout the Borough. It is noted that availability to both dental practices and 

pharmacies is not limited to the geo-political boundary of the Borough. Patients’ 

requiring these services can obtain them from neighboring Boroughs. 


7.12 Local Plan policies LP01 - LP08, confirm where new development is planned to come 

forward in the Borough over the plan period. These policies promote development to be 

focussed in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the former DERA site in Longcross 

LP08. The Local Plan proposes the provision of at least 161 dwellings per annum, or 

2415 to include 1,500 units, plus 80,000 m2 of commercial development (it should be 

noted that as discussed earlier in this report, over the plan period 2011 – 2026 there is 

the potential for an estimated 4,512 new residential units to be provided in the Borough 

within the general locations as set out in Table 8. In addition, RHUL has aspirations to 

expand over the plan period. LP05 allows for some growth on campus over the plan 

period. Development in all of these areas over the plan period is likely to increase the 

number of residents in the Borough potentially using this infrastructure. 

7.13 Planned or potential development in all of these areas over the plan period will increase 

the number of residents requiring primary healthcare infrastructure. No new GP 

practices or other infrastructure are being proposed within the Local Plan to be built 

over the plan period. The exception may be the former DERA site, where it is possible 

that existing GP practices and provision will be stretched to a level that they are 

physically unable to absorb new pressure on capacity. 


7.14 Surrey has a higher proportion of older people compared with England and North 

Surrey has a steadily ageing population; 16.5% (and rising) of the population is over 65 

(SURREYi). Continued population growth accompanied with a change in age profile will 

present challenges for healthcare provision over the plan period in Runnymede and 

impact on primary healthcare services. 

7.15 It is a key Government target to make primary care – GPs, opticians, dentists, 

pharmacists and community health services – more accessible for patients. The NHS 

and Department of Health provide the standard for the number of people to necessitate 

a GP. The standard is 1800 patients per GP (across the UK). As noted in paragraph 

8.6 above however Surrey has a lower average for patients per GP at 1585 patients 

per GP. 

7.16 Despite the predicted trends however and despite the generally high patients numbers 

per GP already experienced within the Borough (with many practices experiencing 

Page | 79 


above average patient targets (both Surrey and England figure), there are no known 

plans for new GP surgeries within the Borough. On the basis of the existing GP to 

patient ratios however (with Virginia Water already has an above average patient to GP 

ratio), it seems likely that a new GP surgery will need to be provided in the Virginia 

Water area over the plan period given the number of dwellings proposed to come 

forward at the former DERA site. Other existing practices may be required to expand to 

meet growth. 


7.17 Any new GP surgery in the Virginia Water area is likely to be funded by developer 

contributions and/or through funding from the Clinical Commissioning Group. 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF058 


Description 

New gp surgery in the Virginia Water 

area 

Estimated 

Cost 

Unknown 

Key 

Provider(s) 

Clinical 

Commissioning 

Group 

7.18 The main risk to this type of infrastructure designation is overstretching of existing 

facilities which will reduce the level of care provided to the population of Runnymede. 

The worst-case scenario could be a loss of care to residents resulting in serious 

disease and/or death in otherwise avoidable situations. Given the urban location of 

existing practices however, it is considered that expansion of existing practices may be 

possible to help cope with extra demand. In addition, given that temporary expansion of 

existing facilities are possible in short lead times, any overflow would naturally direct 

towards secondary care units. Plus, assuming that a new GP surgery at the former 

DERA development was provided, it would assist in easing high patient per GP ratios in 

the western part of the Borough. In conclusion, therefore it is considered that the 

probability of this event occurring is Low. 

7.19 However, that is not to say that should an event occur, for those involved, the severity 

is considered to be high. 

Conclusion 


IDPR016 Unplanned growth in demand Low 

High (for 

those 

involved) 

7.20 Overall in certain areas of the Borough, primary healthcare facilities are known to be 

stretched, in particular GP surgeries in Virginia Water, Ottershaw, Staines (the part of 

which lies within the Borough) and Egham. The predicted development over the plan 

period (in particular an increase of at least 161 dwellings per annum (or at least 2415 

additional dwellings over the plan period) will only stretch GPS surgeries further. It is 

therefore concluded that to cope with additional resident numbers, existing GP 

surgeries may need to expand and a new GP surgery is likely to be required at the 

former DERA site. 

Secondary Healthcare 


7.21 Secondary health care within Runnymede falls under the remit of the NHS South East 

Coast with care being provided by the Ashford and St Peter's Hospital Trust, one of the 

five hospital trusts in Surrey. The Trust is the largest provider of acute hospital services 

in Surrey, serving a population of more than 380,000 people in the Boroughs of 

Runnymede, Spelthorne, Woking and parts of Elmbridge, Hounslow, Surrey Heath and 

Page | 80 


eyond 30 . The trust provides a range of clinical and non-clinical services at two 

hospitals; at the Ashford Hospital in Middlesex (located outside the Borough), and at St 

Peter’s Hospital in Chertsey (located within the Borough). St Peter’s Hospital is also 

part owned and operated by the Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust 

(SABP). 

7.22 There are also some private facilities in the Borough including Runnymede BMI 

hospital. Furthermore, some specialist healthcare is dealt with sub regionally (for 

example-St. George’s, Tooting for heart surgery). 

7.23 Although North West Surrey is a relatively affluent part of the country there are, 

nonetheless, pockets of deprivation with higher health and social needs within the 

trust’s catchment area. In particular, in Surrey, one in ten people over the age of 60 live 

in low income households: the highest levels are found in Woking and Runnymede 

(ONS, 2001). In addition, the catchment population has a high proportion of older 

people with increased health needs, longer average stays in hospital and a greater 

need for social and community care (Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Survey, 2009). 

7.24 The main centres of population served by St Peters Hospital are Addlestone, Egham, 

Woking, Weybridge, Chertsey, Staines and Walton on Thames. The Trust has seen a 

rise in patients over recent years, including A&E visits over the period 1999 to 2008, 

which is partially attributed to population increase (Surrey Infrastructure capacity 

survey, 2009). 

7.25 Over the years, the Hospital has been rebuilt, developed and extended. Most recently, 

the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit was upgraded at a cost of £1.5 million in 2005. In 

2006, two new wards were built onto the Duchess of Kent Wing and work commenced 

on a new mortuary in 2007/2008 (St Peter’s Hospital website). In addition, in 2010, the 

Council approved long term plans for the redevelopment of parts of the St Peter’s 

hospital campus over the next 20 years under RU.09/1093. This will allow for (amongst 

other things), new purpose-built healthcare facilities to replace some of the existing 

dated buildings, for both acute hospital and mental health services. 


7.26 Local Plan policies LP01 - LP08, confirm where new development is planned to come 

forward in Borough over the plan period. These policies promote development to be 

focussed in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the former DERA site in Longcross 

LP08. The Local Plan proposes the provision of at least 161 dwellings per annum, or 

2415 to include 1,500 units at the former DERA site, plus 80,000 m2 of commercial 

development (as noted previously however there is the potential for a maximum of 

4,512 new residential units to be delivered over the plan period although this is 

considered to be unlikely). In addition, RHUL has aspirations to expand over the plan 

period. Policy LP05 will allow for some growth on the campus. Development in all of 

these areas over the plan period is likely to increase the number of residents in the 

Borough potentially using this infrastructure. 

7.27 Planned or potential development within the Borough over the plan period will increase 

the number of residents potentially using secondary healthcare infrastructure, in 

particular, St Peter’s Hospital. St Peter’s Hospital is located in the designated Green 

Belt. Strategic policy SP01 promotes strict protection of the Green Belt. A masterplan 

for the redevelopment of parts of the St Peters Hospital site has however already been 

approved under RU.09/1093 which has established a flexible, comprehensive site wide 

development strategy that will guide all future planning applications on the site for the 

next 20 years. It is not envisaged that any further development (outside of the agreed 

parameters) will be required within the plan period. 

30 

Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Trusts website 

Page | 81 



7.28 The cumulative affect of continued population growth accompanied with a change in 

the age profile of the Borough and the secondary healthcare catchment area over the 

plan period will present challenges for healthcare provision and impact on secondary 

healthcare services in the Borough (as well as other healthcare services (discussed 

elsewhere in this chapter). 

7.29 In order to determine and plan for future health needs within Surrey, a joint strategic 

needs assessment (JSNA) was undertaken by Surrey County Council and Surrey PCT 

(before it was replaced by NHS Surrey) in 2008. The JSNA is a continuous process 

and is updated as additional information becomes available, as gaps are identified and 

in response to feedback received. It seeks “to identify and understand current and 

future health and well being needs of the local population over both the shorter term (3- 

5 years) and the longer term (5-10 years).” The JSNA was required under the Local 

Government and Public Involvement Act 2007 (Surrey Infrastructure capacity survey, 

2009). 

7.30 As with primary healthcare, planning for future health requirements is based on a 

combination of clinical need and future population size and structure (Surrey 

Infrastructure Capacity Study, 2009). Housing type and location will have implications 

for the future population size of the Borough. 

7.31 The Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Survey, 2009 found that the biggest impact on 

health services is likely to be from an ageing population. The over 65 age range is 

projected to increase by 42% and the over 85 age range is projected to increase by 

80% between 2006 and 2026 (ONS, 2007). Older people place greater demands on 

the health service in a number of ways: 

• increase in long term medical conditions; 

• increasing incidence of dementia (by 2025 there will be a 77 percent increase 

in the number of people aged 85+ with dementia); 

• situations that in younger people are considered minor can require hospital 

based care in older people; for example, falling over can have serious 

implications for an older person. 


7.32 The cost of the planned works at St Peter’s Hospital are not known. In terms of sources 

of funding, it is envisaged that the funding would be sourced by the two Hospital Trusts 

which own and run the hospital-namely Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS 

Foundation Trust (SABP) and Ashford and St. Peter’s Hospitals NHS Trust (ASPH). 

Funding 

ID 


Description 

Estimated 

Cost 

IDPF059 Planned works at St Peter’s Hospital Unknown 

Key 

Provider(s) 

SAPB and 

ASPH 

7.33 The main risk to this type of infrastructure designation is that an increase in population 

within the catchment area will outpace the growth of secondary healthcare facilities 

available. Given however that the needs of St Peter’s Hospital have already been 

considered by the Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Trust for the next 20 years, 

this risk of this situation occurring is considered to be relatively low, unless funding for 

the project is reduced due to public sector cuts. 

Page | 82 


Conclusion 


IDPR017 

Growth of hospital catchment area 

outpacing growth of St Peter’s Hospital 

Low 

High (for 

those 

involved) 

7.34 The masterplan at St Peters Hospital will allow for improvements to the facilities during 

the plan period to accommodate an increased population. The requirement for 

additional secondary healthcare facilities over and above those already approved at St 

Peters Hospital is considered highly unlikely during the plan period. This is in part due 

to the existing provision at St Peters Hospital, in conjunction with Green Belt and 

flooding constraints elsewhere in the Borough 

Private healthcare, nursing and residential care 

Existing conditions and provision 

7.35 As mentioned elsewhere in this report, both Runnymede’s and Surrey’s population is 

predicted to rise over the coming decade with notable increases in the number of 

people aged 65 and over. Specifically, the ‘Adult Social Care Commissioning Strategy 

for older people in Surrey 2011-2020’ states that the 65+ population will increase by 

10.8% and 19.6% by 2015 and 2020 respectively. The life expectancy in Surrey for 

men is 79.8 and 83.3 for women. Overall the 65+ population is expected to overtake 

that of the under 16s within 20 years. 

7.36 It is estimated that there are 14,830 people with dementia over the age of 65 in Surrey 

at the current time with a projected increase to 18,600 by 2020. This reflects the 

national forecast for an ageing population. As at 2011, 20,623 people in Surrey have a 

learning disability, with 3,969 aged 65 and over. The latter figure is expected to rise by 

over 20% to approximately 4,800 by 2020 (Adult Social Care Commissioning Strategy 

for older people in Surrey 2011-2020). 

7.37 In Runnymede itself, as with the Surrey forecast, there is predicted to be notable 

increase in population for people aged 65 and over up until 2030. The tables below 

depict the increases in the over 65 population in the Borough between 2012 and 2030, 

with the first table showing these increases using numbers, and the second table 

showing the increases expressed as percentages. 

Table 12 - Population aged 65 and over in Runnymede, projected to 2030 

2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 

People aged 65-69 4,300 4,500 4,000 4,500 5,300 

People aged 70-74 3,100 3,500 4,200 3,800 4,200 

People aged 75-79 2,800 2,800 3,200 3,900 3,500 

People aged 80-84 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,800 3,500 

People aged 85-89 1,400 1,500 1,800 2,000 2,300 

People aged 90 and 

over 

Total population 65 

and over 

900 1,100 1,300 1,700 2,000 

14,700 15,700 16,900 18,700 20,800 

Page | 83 


Table 13 - % Population aged 65 and over in Runnymede, projected to 2030 

2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 

People aged 65-69 0 5% -7% 5% 23% 

People aged 70-74 0 13% 35% 23% 35% 

People aged 75-79 0 0 14% 39% 25% 

People aged 80-84 0 5% 9% 27% 59% 

People aged 85-89 0 7% 29% 43% 64% 

People aged 90 

and over 

Total population 

65 and over 

source www.poppi.org.uk 

0 22% 44% 89% 122% 

0 7% 15% 27% 41% 

7.38 The data suggests that the predicted increase will be 27% increase in the over 65 

population between 2012 and 2025, one year before the end of the plan period in 2026. 

7.39 At the current time there are 14 known residential care homes/nursing homes in the 

Borough which provide for elderly people. Of these homes, 10 cater for people with 

dementia. A further three homes also have a registered care category for dementia 

(although not for old age). In total, up to 588 elderly people can be cared for in the 

Borough’s residential care homes 31 . The total capacity of these facilities is unknown at 

this time although a number of them are believed to be still accepting new residents. It 

is also reasonable to expect the market to respond to the increasing potential demand 

for care (see: Figure 16). 

Figure 16 - Population aged 65 and over in Runnymede, projected to 2030 against % increase 

total 

6,000 

0.6 

Projected Numbers 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

-0.2 

-0.4 

-0.6 

-0.8 

% Change per year 

People aged 65-69 





People aged 90 and over 

% Total population 65 and 

over 

0 

2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 

Years 

-1 

7.40 In addition to residential care homes and nursing homes within the Borough, there are 

a range of sheltered housing schemes available; 5 Council run schemes (known as 

31 

www.carehome.co.uk 

Page | 84 


Independent Retirement Living schemes) providing 221 units of accommodation (158 

one bedroom flats, 50 studio flats, 7 two bedroom flats and 6 one bedroom bungalows, 

30 of which have shared bathroom/shower facilities), 6 Housing Association schemes, 

providing 287 units (mixture of studio, 1no. and 2no. bedroom units), and a range of 

privately run sheltered housing schemes (providing 557 1no. and 2no. bedroom 

units) 32 . 

7.41 The 2011/2012 adult social care commissioning profile for Runnymede JSNA reports 

that across the range of supported housing services, Runnymede is relatively well 

provided in respect of services for people with mental health issues compared to 

others. There is a surplus of traditional sheltered housing for older people in 

Runnymede but there is an undersupply of housing and support for those who are 

physically frail or have dementia (through extra care packages for example). 

7.42 The Adult Social Care Commissioning Strategy for older people in Surrey 2011-2020 

also shows that at June 2011, Runnymede had the highest proportion of residents over 

65 years of age with learning disabilities receiving support than any other 

Borough/district in the County. At the current time however there are only 9 residential 

care homes in the Borough which cater for people with learning disabilities. These 

homes have a combined capacity to care for 72 people with learning disabilities. 

7.43 Table 20 below shows that there is predicted to be an increase in the number of 

residents in the Borough with a learning disability over the plan period, with an increase 

of approximately 10.4% between 2012 and 2025. 

Table 20 - People predicted to have a learning disability by age in Runnymede: 2012-2030 

2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 

People aged 18-24 predicted to have a learning 

disability 


disability 


disability 


disability 


disability 


disability 


disability 

People aged 85 and over predicted to have a 

learning disability 

298 300 286 296 330 

309 316 319 309 299 

287 285 303 324 330 

284 297 289 278 292 

209 214 246 268 262 

159 172 179 179 205 

100 102 113 136 142 

44 50 60 72 85 

Total population aged 18 and over predicted to 

have a learning disability 

www.pansi.org.uk 

1,688 1,735 1,794 1,863 1,943 

7.44 The 2011/2012 adult social care commissioning profile for Runnymede JSNA reports 

that in Runnymede there is a gap in supply for people with learning disabilities. This 

need is intensified by the County’s strategic priority to offer supported living options for 

people with disabilities as an alternative to residential care. There is an aspiration for 

32 

Runnymede Borough Council’s Guide to Sheltered Housing, 2012 and www.housingcare.org 

Page | 85 



the Council and County to work together to explore additional housing options for 

people with learning disabilities including supported living and increased nominations to 

suitable vacancies within the housing stock. 

7.45 Given the emphasis on elderly and vulnerable people being cared for in their homes/in 

the community where possible, it is considered that the location policies in the core 

strategy are particularly relevant. Specifically, location policy 1 (LP01) is clear that new 

development will be focussed in the Borough’s Urban Areas, with the exception of the 

new development at the former DERA site. The Council’s proposal to concentrate 

development in the Urban Area; in the Borough’s most sustainable locations, close to 

existing facilities is considered to help achieve Government’s vision that elderly, and 

disabled people will be able to live independently and in their communities wherever 

possible. 

7.46 Within the Borough however, there are residents living in more isolated locations. In 

such cases, strategic policy 9 (SP09) is considered to be particularly relevant as it 

seeks to improve accessibility by sustainable modes of transport ‘to town centres, local 

centres, and facilities needed on an everyday basis’. 


7.47 The Government wishes to see a strategic shift to investment in community 

preventative services. This may place significant pressure on social care systems as 

more people are supported in their local community. 

7.48 NHS Surrey and Surrey County Council (SCC) are leading the planned approach for 

spend against the Department of Health (DH) investment for Partnership Grant in 

2012/13. Based on local need, it has been agreed that the priority for this funding is to 

develop a whole system, integrated re-ablement and recovery service centred on 

promoting, recovering and maintaining levels of independence and self-care wherever 

possible. The principle adopted in the plan is to develop permanent service 

arrangements on the basis that the measures are likely to prove advantageous from an 

‘invest to save’ point of view. Each element of this funding has been linked to delivery 

of the One Plan (QIPP) Programmes; Acute Care, Long Term Conditions, End of Life 

Care, Mental Health (dementia) and Digital Vision. As such, delivery will be monitored 

through the One Plan governance structure, led by the NHS Surrey Acute Care and 

LTC Lead and the Surrey County Council Associate Director of Adult Social Care (note: 

reablement means preparing people to live independently at home again, after a period 

of hospitalisation or crisis). 

7.49 This integrated service will: 

• Contain service and support elements which actively promote independence 

• Ensure managers understand their budgets (pay & non-pay); provide 

opportunities for re-ablement to support those in the community with long 

term health conditions to remain independent for as long as possible. 

• Develop key competencies and skills with Health and Social care staff to 

deliver such services. 

7.50 Measures will include: 

• A range of preventative services designed to prevent or delay admission to 

hospital 

• Services which provide the opportunity to maximise recovery and reablement 

for those discharged from hospital and in the community 

Page | 86 


• Services which enhance the management of people with long term health 

conditions within the community with a view to reducing or delaying hospital 

admissions, as well as supporting their carers 33 

• In Runnymede specifically, the JSNA 2011/2012 adult social care 

commissioning profile for Runnymede states that the areas for development 

are: 

• to increase the numbers of people who can be supported in the community 

through the use of assistive technology 

• to avoid unnecessary hospital admissions, and once fit for discharge, to 

ensure there is excellent support in the community to enable people to return 

home speedily, confidently, and to maximise independence 

• to ensure that domiciliary care services, residential and nursing care services 

focus on re-ablement and maintaining independence 

• to continue to commission local preventative support services that allow 

people to remain living in their own homes for as long as possible 

• to commission care services that can respond quickly, that can be contacted 

from 8am-8pm and at weekends, to respond to need, which avoid 

unnecessary delay in service delivery 

• deregistration of residential services to supported living for people with 

learning disabilities. 

7.51 In addition, the Adult Social Care Commissioning Strategy for older people in Surrey 

(2011 – 2020) aims to enhance the development of telecare and telehealth services. 

Telecare is one of the fundamental planks of supporting older people with dementia to 

live safely in their own home. 

7.52 The Adult Social Care Commissioning Strategy for older people in Surrey 2011 – 2020 

reported that in 2010/11, a 9.7% reduction in residential and nursing home care 

placement activity was seen. It is considered that this reduction correlates with the shift 

in resources away from residential care into community and reablement opportunities. 

Given the Government’s commitment to investing in community preventative services, 

this trend is expected to continue. 

7.53 Within Runnymede, there are two extant planning approvals which are considered to 

be worthy of mention. The first is the redevelopment of Queen Elizabeth House in 

Englefield Green which will provide a 65 bedroom nursing and care home. The second 

approval relates to the former Brunel University, Runnymede campus site which will 

provide 59 units of extra care accommodation. 

7.54 In addition, residents at the independent retirement living scheme at Beomonds, Heriot 

Road, Chertsey are currently being decanted to allow for the refurbishment of the main 

building. The 31 units within the main building will be reduced to 17 or 18 units of 

improved accommodation. The works are set to commence in March 2013 and take 

approximately 12 months to complete before the building can be re opened. Talks are 

currently underway between Surrey County Council and Runnymede Borough Council 

to explore the possibility of providing extra care facilities at the refurbished Beomonds 

and at Floral House in Chertsey. The idea is that Floral House would house the care 

team required to provide the extra care and Beomonds would be a ‘satellite’ facility 

which would also benefit from the extra care packages offered. 

33 

NHS Surrey One Plan, March 2012 

Page | 87 



7.55 The Adult Social Care Commissioning Strategy for older people in Surrey 2011 – 2020 

states that there will be an injection of £10.6m in 2011/12 (and then £10.2m in 2012/13) 

of partnership monies across the health and social care system (as outlined in the One 

Plan schedule of spend – the joint allocation between NHS Surrey and Surrey County 

Council). This injection will pump prime preventative services for people who need 

support and focus on promoting independence, avoiding admission to and speeding up 

discharges from acute or long term care in Surrey. 

7.56 In addition, approximately £3.66 million is allocated to older people services through 

the Supporting People programme, targeted towards sheltered housing services, Extra 

Care services and Home Improvement Agency services in Surrey. 

7.57 Surrey County Council allocates approximately £3.6 million funding in grants and 

contracts by Borough and district, with a primary focus on prevention and promoting 

independence: services such as day care, befriending and meals on wheels. 

7.58 In regard to telecare services, the expectation is that most people in Surrey will pay for 

the cost of their own Telecare service, although those that are eligible for an Adult 

Social Care service will get financial help. It is envisaged however that all who might 

benefit from Telecare will have an opportunity for a free Telecare service (up to 12 

weeks) to see if the service meets their needs. 

7.59 Adult Social Care has developed a 3-year Whole System Partnership Funding Plan of 

£21 million. The plan developed in conjunction with NHS Surrey will largely focus on 

telecare and telehealth as well as support the development of re-ablement services, 

improvements to the management of long-term conditions as well as supporting 

unexpected pressures on the systems such as severe winter weather, and responding 

to seasonal peaks in flu and other viruses. The outcome must demonstrate benefits to 

both health and social care services, and encourage greater integration between health 

and social care at the local level. This investment will result in better outcomes for 

people needing support or treatment at a lower cost of provision overall (all from The 

Adult Social Care Commissioning Strategy for older people in Surrey 2011 – 2020). 

7.60 In Runnymede itself, the refurbishment of the Independent Living Retirement scheme 

at Beomonds in being funded by Runnymede Borough Council at a cost of £1.2 million. 

7.61 In regard to the proposal to provide extra care facilities at Beomonds (once 

refurbished), and Floral House, Chertsey, Surrey County Council would be responsible 

for providing the care package whilst Runnymede Borough Council would fund any 

operational development required (provision of offices for extra care staff for example). 

The total cost of this proposal is not yet known (info from RBC Head of Community 

Services). 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF060 

IDPF061 

IDPF062 

IDPF063 

Description 

redevelopment of Queen Elizabeth 

House in Englefield Green 

Provision of 59 units of extra care 

accommodation at the former Brunel 

campus 

Refurbishment of Beomonds, Heriot 

Road, Chertsey 

Provision of extra care facilities at the 

refurbished Beomonds and at Floral 

House in Chertsey 

Estimated 

Cost 

Unknown 

Unknown 

£1.2 

million 

Unknown 

Key 

Provider(s) 

Windsar 

Care Ltd 

Orchid 


Limited 

RBC 

RBC/SCC 

Page | 88 



7.62 The main risk to this capacity for this infrastructure designation is supply of the 

necessary services and facilities to meet with the Government’s plan not matching 

demand. Given however that Surrey County Council and Runnymede Borough Council 

already have strategies in place to allow for a transition in care provision to be made, 

this is considered to be a low risk outcome in this case. 

Conclusion 


IDPR018 Supply fails to match demand Low Low 

7.63 Overall, there is a significant change in the Government’s approach to caring for elderly 

people and those with learning disabilities with an emphasis on independent living, reablement 

and preventative care. Surrey County Council and Runnymede Borough 

Council are currently putting strategies in place to ensure that Government’s vision can 

be achieved. 

Page | 89 


Chapter 8. Utilities 

Introduction 

8.1 This chapter considers the provision of utilities in the Borough, specifically analysing: 

• existing provision and capacity 

• impacts on existing provision and capacity over the plan period 

• identification of where future provision will be required 

• role of local plan 

• costs of any planned infrastructure and sources of funding 

8.2 Energy (gas and electricity), mobile communications, drinking water supply and waste 

water treatment will be considered individually. 

Energy (gas and electricity) 


8.3 A number of companies supply gas to the Runnymede area. The gas network in the 

Borough is supported by a range of local and regional infrastructure. 

8.4 The Runnymede area is served by two main Regional Energy Suppliers: EDF Energy 

and Southern Electric although customers are free to choose their energy supplier. 

There are two known electricity switching stations within the Borough, in New Haw. It 

should be noted however that provision of this type of infrastructure is not based on 

local authority boundaries, and as such infrastructure elsewhere in the region in all 

likelihood also supports properties within the Borough. 


8.5 The increase in the forecasted amount of development in the Borough and population 

growth generally across the plan period has been documented elsewhere in this report. 

The location policies in the Local Plan; LP01-LP08, confirm where new development is 

expected in the Borough over the plan period. Development would largely be focused 

in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the former DERA site in Longcross (where 1500 

dwellings are expected to be provided over the plan period). Development in these 

areas over the plan period will require electricity and gas from the existing networks. 

8.6 The potential growth of electric vehicles (EVs) and plug in hybrid electric vehicles 

(PHEVs) (discussed in more detail in the ‘future provision’ section below) over the plan 

period would be in accordance with the aims of Strategic Policy 9 (SP09) which is 

concerned with sustainable transport provision in the Borough over the plan period. 


8.7 The forecast for household growth in the Scotia Gas Networks Southern region is 

12.4% over the forecast period and is being driven by a combination of continued 

immigration, increases in single occupancy and greater job opportunities remaining in 

the South of England. The current demand forecasts indicate however an overall 

0.91% decrease in annual gas demand for the Southern Networks between 2011 and 

2020. (Scotland Gas Networks and Southern Gas Networks Long Term Development 

Statement 2011). There are no known plans to improve the gas infrastructure in the 

Borough over the plan period. 

8.8 There are also no known plans to improve the electricity infrastructure within the 

Borough. It should be noted however that a number of volume car manufacturers have 

announced intentions to develop electric vehicles (EVs) and plug in hybrid electric 

vehicles (PHEVs). These will initially be introduced into the UK market as 

Page | 90 


demonstrators or in very low volumes. Due to vehicle development lead times, mass 

production and volume availability of EVs and PHEVs is unlikely to occur before 2014 

at the earliest. 

8.9 The impact of EVs and PHEVs on the UK electricity grid has been examined in the 

‘Investigation into the Scope for the Transport Sector to Switch to Electric Vehicles and 

Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles’ (October 2008) which was jointly undertaken by Arup and 

Cenex on behalf of the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform 

(BERR) and the Department for Transport (DfT). This report investigates the scope for 

the transport sector to switch to vehicles powered through electricity from the grid in the 

period until 2030. 

8.10 The report concludes that there is sufficient generating capacity to cope with the uptake 

assuming that demand for charging is managed and targeted at off-peak periods where 

there is currently surplus capacity. In this same report, it is also stated that the existing 

national transmission network will be sufficient to cope with the demand from vehicles. 

There may possibly be distribution issues where local networks are already close to 

capacity but in such circumstances this can be overcome with local reinforcement. 


8.11 It is expected that any additional/upgraded utilities infrastructure required to support 

new development over the plan period will be funded by the relevant developers or 

energy providers where necessary although no specific improvements to the existing 

gas and electricity networks have been identified at this time. 


8.12 No identified risk to this receptor at this time. 

Conclusion 

8.13 Overall the existing infrastructure is considered to be sufficient to support the 

development proposed over the plan period without large scale improvements. It is 

envisaged that any improvements required to the existing network would be small scale 

and funded by the relevant developers or energy providers where necessary. 

Mobile communications 


8.14 There are a number of telecommunications masts within the Borough which are 

generally well spread. These installations serve not only residents and businesses 

within the Borough, but also people passing through the Borough on a daily basis. 

8.15 Since April 2000, when Vodafone and Telefónica were successful in their bids for two 

of the five licences available to provide a ‘Third Generation’ mobile telecommunications 

service known as ‘3G’, these companies have been under a legal obligation to expand 

their networks to provide 3G coverage to an area where at least 80% of the UK 

population live by 2007. Applications for new telecommunications equipment to provide 

3G coverage to certain areas of the Borough have however been received beyond 

2007. 

8.16 In addition, the UK Government has an ambition for the country to have the best 

superfast broadband network in the EU by 2015 (BT openreach website). BT 

openreach have been rolling out a series of new cabinets within each of their telephone 

exchange areas that will be used to provide these high speed broadband services to 

residents and businesses in the exchange areas. This service is known as ‘Super Fast 

Fibre Access’ (SFFA) and will provide up to 40Mb per second download speeds and up 

to 10Mb upload speeds. It is estimated that around two-thirds of UK premises will 

benefit from this service by the end of 2014. 

Page | 91 



8.17 The location policies in the Local Plan (LP01-LP08), confirm where new development is 

expected in the Borough over the plan period. In total, up to 4512 new residential units 

could be built (although it is not considered likely that this number will be delivered) 

plus 80,000sqm of office space. Development would largely be focused in the 

Borough’s Urban Areas and at the former DERA site in Longcross. New development 

in these areas over the plan period will utilise the telecommunications network which 

exists in the Borough and any further masts permitted over the plan period. 


8.18 The Mobile Operators Association (representing T Mobile UK (TMUK) & 3, O2, Orange 

and Vodafone) Annual Rollout Plans for 2011/12 identified a number of planned new 

sites for telecommunications development in the Borough over the coming year. With 

over 81 million mobile connections in the UK, improvements in technology, and 

customer expectations, there is continuing demand for network upgrades and 

expansion so that customers can use their mobile phones when and where they want. 

It is therefore considered reasonable to assume that there will be an increase in the 

amount of telecommunications infrastructure in the Borough over the plan period as 

well as upgrades to existing installations. 

8.19 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states (in paragraph 42) that, 

‘advanced, high quality communications infrastructure is essential for sustainable 

economic growth. The development of high-speed broadband technology and other 

communications networks also plays a vital role in enhancing the provision of local 

community facilities and services’. Indeed it is agreed that in line with this approach, 

new and upgraded telecommunications infrastructure will be vital in ensuring a vibrant 

and prosperous economy over the plan period. 


8.20 It is expected that any additional infrastructure that is required to support the 

telecommunications network or local access networks in the Borough over the plan 

period will be funded by mobile phone operators or companies in the communications 

industry. 


8.21 The main risk to this type of infrastructure is considered to be the natural and built 

environment in the Borough preventing effective coverage from telecommunications 

infrastructure. Dense wooded areas are, for example, known to affect the ability of 

masts to provide effective coverage. Such features could impact on the effectiveness of 

the telecommunications infrastructure which could have a knock on effect for residents 

and businesses operating in the Borough. The risk of this scenario occurring varies 

across the Borough depending on the individual characteristics of a given locality. 


IDPR019 

Natural and built environment of 

Borough preventing effective coverage 

Medium Low 

IDPR020 

Supply of new and/or improved 

infrastructure and pace of change in Low Low 

technology failing to meet demand 

Conclusion 

8.22 Development proposals over the plan period, in combination with improvements in 

technology and high customer expectations are likely to place additional pressure on 

the existing communications infrastructure that serves the Borough. Proposals for new 

communications infrastructure or improvements to existing installations are expected 

over the plan period. Each application will need to be considered on its own merits. The 

Page | 92 


identified risks to provision over the plan period are however not under the control of 

the Council. 

Drinking Water Supply 


8.23 Affinity Water (previously Veolia Water Central) supplies water to the entire Borough. 

Veolia Water Central changed its name to Affinity Water on 1 st October 2012. The last 

Water Resources Management Plan produced by Affinity Water (when known as Veolia 

Water Central) was published in March 2010. This noted that the company is the 

largest ‘water supply only’ company in the UK and delivers 870 million litres of water 

daily to 1.3 million customers and a population of 3 million (Veolia Water Central Water 

Resources Management Plan March 2010). There are two water abstraction plants in 

the Borough, one off the Causeway in Staines, and the other off Ferry Lane in 

Chertsey. 




in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the former DERA site in Longcross. New 

development in these areas over the plan period will utilise the existing drinking water 

supply network which exists in the Borough. As noted elsewhere in this IDP, up to 4512 

new residential units could be provided over the plan period and 80,000sqm of 

commercial floor space at the former DERA site. 


8.25 The Veolia Water Central Water Resources Management Plan March 2010 contains 

details of the company’s strategy to ensure enough good quality water to meet the 

needs of the customers in their region until 2035 and beyond. This strategy is based on 

the predicted 25% increase in the number of dwellings in their catchment area, and the 

associated 13% increase in population. A reduction in water availability of around 2% 

by 2030 has been allowed for as a result of climate change. 

8.26 A number of measures are proposed in this published Water Resources Management 

Plan including a continued commitment to reducing leakage from pipes. In particular, 

after 2014, the plan states that it is aimed to reduce leakage by a total of 20 million 

litres per day (ml/d) over the period to 2030. In addition Veolia Water Central aim to 

meter to achieve about 90% meter penetration by 2030 to minimise environmental 

impacts and greenhouse gas emissions. 

8.27 Veolia Water Central (now Affinity Water) state in their 2010 Water Resources 

Management Plan that their evidence shows that if expected reductions in water use as 

a result of metering are sustained in the longer term, coupled with further leakage 

reductions, they will not need to develop any new water resources until after 2035 (an 

Affinity Water representative has confirmed however that OFWAT funding was not 

gained for the proposed metering proposals and as such the proposal has not been 

taken forward at the current time). 

8.28 An updated Water Resource Management Plan is currently being drafted by Affinity 

Water which will be published in March 2013. This will show how the company plans to 

supply enough water to meet demand in its region over the next 25 years and will cover 

the period 2015-2040. 


8.29 Given that there are no known plans to improve the existing water supply infrastructure 

in the Borough at the current time, this section is not applicable in this case. 

Page | 93 



8.30 The main risks to this type of infrastructure designation are considered to be: 

• contamination of the drinking water, given that the Borough relies solely on 

one provider. Affinity Water have their own procedures in place however to 

limit potential for contamination. As such the risk of this scenario occurring is 

considered to be low. 

• sustainability reductions set by the Environment Agency impacting on supply 

(the Environment Agency regulate the abstraction licences issued to water 

supply companies). 


IDPR021 Contamination of water supply Low High 

IDPR022 

Sustainability reductions set by the 

Environment Agency 

Medium Medium 

Conclusion 

8.31 Overall, on the basis of the information provided to date, it is considered that the 

existing infrastructure is sufficient to meet the development needs of the Borough over 

the plan period. This chapter may however need to be reviewed when the Affinity 

Water Resource Management Plan 2015-2040 is issued in March 2013 as this updated 

plan may draw different conclusions from the 2010 plan in regard to how growth in the 

region will be met over the plan period. 

Sewerage Treatment 


8.32 Thames Water is responsible for sewerage treatment in the Borough, and the Chertsey 

Sewage Treatment Works at Lyne Lane, Chertsey (which Thames Water own) treats 

and disposes of sewage from the Chertsey Catchment Area. In 2011, Surrey County 

Council granted permission for improvements to the sewerage treatment works at Lyne 

Lane including the construction and operation of a sludge dewatering and cake storage 

building, odour control unit and landscaped earth bund. 




in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the former DERA site in Longcross. New 

development in these areas over the plan period will utilise the existing sewerage 

treatment infrastructure which exists in the Borough and surrounding areas. 


8.34 Thames Water state that the projected population growth within its area will increase 

demand for sewerage treatment, placing increased pressure on its treatment works and 

sewerage network. It will also reduce availability and increase the cost of land required 

for future sewerage development. Between 2015-2035 Thames Water aim to adapt 

their sewerage system to cope with climate change. Between 2010 and 2015 in 

particular, Thames Water plan to invest £4.9bn, £9 million of which is planned to be 

spent on Chertsey Sewage Works. Whilst the full extent of the works proposed at 

Chertsey Sewage Works are not known, it is known that it is proposed to install a new 

combined heat and power unit at the treatment works which will capture the methane 

produced, store it and use it as fuel, generating renewable energy (Thames Water, ‘Our 

plans for 2010-2015). 

Page | 94 



8.35 The cost of improvements to Chertsey Sewage Works will be met by Thames Water. 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF064 


Description 

Improvements to Chertsey Sewage 

Works 

8.36 The main risks to this infrastructure are considered to be: 

Estimated 

Cost 

£9million 

Key 

Provider(s) 

Thames 

Water 

• the waste water not being treated properly resulting in the spread of disease 

in the Borough. There is however considered to be a low risk of this scenario 

occurring given that Thames Water have their own procedures in place to 

limit potential for such an event occurring. 

• improvements to the Sewage Works in the Borough and beyond to come 

forward in time to meet growth. 


IDPR023 Failure to properly treat sewage Low High 

IDPR024 

Failure to improvement the existing 

sewage treatment facilities in time to Unknown High 

meet growth 

Conclusion 

8.37 It is not known whether the capacity of Chertsey Sewage Works will meet the growth of 

the Borough and the surrounding area over the plan period. Thames Water has 

however planned improvements to these works during the plan period to help the 

system cope with the effects of climate change. It will be the responsibility of Thames 

Water to assess whether any further works are required during the plan period to meet 

levels of expected growth in the catchment area. 

Page | 95 


Chapter 9. Waste Management 

Introduction 

9.1 This chapter considers waste management and analyses the Borough’s existing 

provision of waste management facilities and capacity. The chapter then moves on to 

consider the likely impact of the predicted development in the Borough on these 

facilities during the plan period, before identifying where and when future provision will 

be required over this same period (if applicable). 

9.2 Responsibility for strategic waste management in Surrey lies with Surrey County 

Council. The key planning document for waste management is the Surrey Waste 

Management Plan which was adopted in 2008. This is actually made up of 3 

development plan documents which together set out the planning framework for the 

development of waste management facilities in Surrey. One of the overarching aims of 

the Surrey Waste Plan is to minimise the volume of waste produced to reduce the 

amount to be disposed of in landfill. This is in line with European and national level 

policies. In addition, it is aimed to ensure that a high percentage of waste that is 

produced is reused or recycled. 

9.3 To successfully achieve the targets for recycling, composting, recovery and diversion of 

waste from landfill, the Surrey Waste Plan is clear that a range of new facilities will be 

required across the County and at a range of scales, both large and small. 


9.4 Currently, there are 15 Community Recycling Centres within Surrey. The Lyne Lane 

Community Recycling Centre is located within the Borough itself. The nearest 

Community Recycling Centres outside the Borough for Runnymede residents are 

located at Martyrs Lane, Woking and Charlton Lane, Shepperton. In 2011/12, some 

139,624 tonnes of municipal waste was collected at County’s Community Recycling 

Centres. The overall percentage of waste recycled at the County’s Community 

Recycling Centres over this same period was in the region of 70.2%. Amongst the 

individual centres however the rate of recycling varied considerably. In 2011/12 the 

best performing CRC was at Bond Road in Warlingham which recycled 75.50% of its 

waste. The lowest rate of recycling was at Lyne Lane CRC which recycled 65.80% of 

all deposited waste. 

9.5 Of relevance, in 2006, permission was granted (RU.06/0716) for the redesign of Lyne 

Lane Community Recycling Centre into a modern split level recycling facility to improve 

recycling provision and waste separation at the site. At the same time, the applicant 

(Surrey Waste Management ltd) applied to the Environment Agency to increase the 

capacity of the site from 7500 to 8500 tonnes per annum (under a waste management 

licence). 

9.6 In addition, there are a number of local recycling facilities spread across the Borough. 

The location of the Lyne Lane Community Recycling Centre and local recycling 

facilities in the Borough are shown in Figure 17 below. 

Page | 96 


Figure 17 - Location of recycling facilities in the Borough 

9.7 The Council changed its recycling and rubbish collection routine in October 2012. 

Residents in the Borough have their refuse collected fortnightly and their recycling on 

the alternate fortnights (co-mingled waste). Food waste bins are collected weekly. 

Residents can be provided with green waste bins and/or bags but this is a chargeable 

service. Green waste is collected fortnightly. 

9.8 In terms of capacity of existing facilities, there are no capacity issues at either the Lyne 

Lane Community Recycling Centre or at the local recycling facilities in the Borough. 

Surrey Waste Partnership’s ‘A plan for waste management’ (September 2010) noted at 

the time of writing of the report, however, that there were insufficient facilities in Surrey 

to treat all of the collected green waste that was potentially available from the Districts, 

and there were no facilities which could accept food waste in the County. 


9.9 It is estimated that over the plan period 2011-2026, that significant new residential units 

will be provided across the Borough within the general locations shown in Table 4. It is 

considered reasonable to assume that the increase in residents that will accompany 

this new development (as well as that generated from growth across the London Fringe 

area generally) will put extra pressure on the waste management facilities in the 

Borough and surrounding area. In line with the recommendations of the Surrey Waste 

Plan therefore, further facilities are likely to be required to support growth. 

9.10 Strategic Policy 01 is concerned with Green Belt areas in the Borough. Any waste 

management facilities proposed in the Green Belt will need to be carefully considered 

as this policy promotes the strict protection of the Green Belt. This ties in with policy 

CW6 of the Surrey Waste Management Plan which also states that there will be a 

presumption against inappropriate waste related development in the Green Belt except 

Page | 97 


in very special circumstances. It states that very special circumstances to justify 

inappropriate development of waste management facilities in the Green Belt will not 

exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly 

outweighed by other considerations. It notes that the following may contribute to very 

special circumstances: 


• the lack of suitable non-Green Belt sites 

• the need to find locations well related to the source of waste arisings; 

• the characteristics of the site; and 

• the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste 

management, including the need for a range of sites. 

9.11 The South East Plan (2009) estimated that total waste production in Surrey will grow 

from 24.5 million tonnes per annum to nearly 35 million tonnes per annum by 2025. It is 

considered reasonable to assume that the predicted increase in population in the 

region over this same period will correlate with an increase in municipal waste 

(although commercial and industrial waste arisings are likely to be unaffected by 

population growth). The Surrey Waste Management Plan notes that the average Surrey 

resident is increasing the amount of waste produced each year. The rate of growth 

DEFRA expects for household waste generation is expected to be in the region of 1.5% 

per annum. 

9.12 When considering specific developments proposed, there are no known plans to make 

further improvements to either the Lyne Lane Community Recycling Centre or the local 

recycling facilities within the Borough over the plan period at the current time. 

9.13 A number of applications have however been considered by Surrey County Council at 

Trumps Farm, Kitsmead Lane, Lyne in the last few years. These applications have 

allowed for: 

• the construction and operation of a) an anaerobic digestion facility and b) a 

wood drying and pelleting facility at the site 

• the continued use of the land for importation of green waste for shredding and 

composting in eco-pods and soils for screening for use on the farms in 

association with an organic farming project and the reconfiguration of the 

working area including seven storage bays; reduction in the size of bin area; 

relocation of control room office, car parking area, lagoon and weighbridge, 

embankment and eco-pods. 

9.14 When operational, the anaerobic digester will process up to 48,500tpa of biodegradable 

organic waste (e.g. food waste) serving primarily the north of Surrey. The site will 

accept mainly commercial waste from restaurants, supermarkets, hospitals and food 

manufacturing companies. The wood drying and pelleting facility would process up to 

10,000tpa of wood waste from local landscapers and highway maintenance works 

(Waste Planning, 4th November 2011). 

9.15 The Surrey Waste Management Plan policy WD2 also allocates the land adjacent to 

Trumps Farm, Longcross and Lyne Lane, Chertsey (a former compost site) for most 

forms of waste management use (excluding thermal treatment). 

9.16 In addition, it should be noted that the eco-park at Charlton Lane, Shepperton, although 

situated outside the Borough, will serve the needs of Spelthorne, Elmbridge and 

Runnymede for the treatment of mostly residual household waste. Surrey County 

Council Planning and Regulatory Committee agreed to permit the development, subject 

Page | 98 


to conditions, on 9 March 2012. A timeline for the construction of the eco-park is now 

being developed. 


9.17 In spite of the uncertainties in predicting future waste management costs from 2011 

until 2026 (i.e. over the plan period), Surrey Waste Partnership’s ‘A plan for waste 

management’ (2010) states that costs will rise substantially over this period. This 

increase in cost will be driven mainly by the implementation of new treatment systems 

and the underlying growth in waste, generated in part by an increased population in the 

Borough of Runnymede and across the County more generally. 

9.18 The only known waste management development proposed in the Borough at the 

current time is at Trumps Farm, Kitsmead Lane, although it is assumed that the 

proposed works would be funded by the applicant-Agrivert Ltd. 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF065 


Description 

Implementation of approved works at 

Trumps Farm, Kitsmead Lane 

Estimated 

Cost 

Unknown 

Key 

Provider(s) 

Agrivert Ltd 

9.19 The biggest risk in this case is the requisite number of sites not coming forward in the 

County over the plan period to meet growth. This would have significant transport 

implications, taking waste out of the Borough (in particular recycling waste). This could 

be considered unsustainable. This risk is considered, however, to be relatively low 

given that Surrey County Council and Surrey Waste Partnership are already 

addressing how to meet the needs of the County as the population grows and needs 

change. 

Conclusion 


IDPR025 

Sufficient sites not coming forward in 

County over plan period for new waste 

management facilities to meet growth 

Low 

Medium 

9.20 Overall the existing waste management infrastructure both inside and outside the 

Borough is considered sufficient to serve the Borough at the current time. Additional 

growth in the Borough and the area surrounding the Borough over the plan period will, 

however, put additional pressure on existing facilities which is likely to necessitate 

further provision of waste management facilities across the County. 

Page | 99 


Chapter 10. Green Infrastructure 

Introduction 

10.1 Green infrastructure is a concept that embraces a network of multi-functional green 

spaces in urban areas, the countryside, in and around towns and the wider countryside. 

It encompasses the full range of natural and historic landscape, including waterways, 

woodlands, and green corridors. It brings many social, economic and environmental 

benefits, attracting investment, jobs and people to areas. 

10.2 Natural England promotes green infrastructure as an important component of the 

infrastructure required to support sustainable growth. It also has an important role in 

enabling landscapes to become more responsive to climate change, such as absorbing 

CO2, heat and flood control, and possibly even enabling local food production. 

10.3 A notable feature of Surrey is the extent and variety of woodland, including copses, 

downland, wooded heath, hedgerows and Ancient Woodland. Not only are these 

visually pleasing, but they can also be valuable for recreation and their ecological 

variety. The Borough itself has a diverse array of green infrastructure including large 

areas of open space, commons and woodlands to which the public have access, and 

also formal parks and gardens. Wildlife is not confined solely to designated sites but is 

found throughout the Borough. 

10.4 In examining the provision of green infrastructure within the Borough, four separate 

analyses have been undertaken on the following: 

• Designated Nature Sites 

• Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) 

• Natural and semi natural green space 

• Amenity open space 

Designated Nature Sites 


10.5 A number of internationally designated sites (those sites are afforded the highest level 

of protection for both their habitats and species) and nationally protected sites (those 

being designated for being areas of outstanding value for their plants, animals, 

geological or physiological features designations) are located either wholly or partly 

within the Borough’s boundaries (or on land adjacent to the Borough boundaries). 

These sites are listed as follows: 

10.6 Internationally Designated Sites: (please note SPA stands for Special Protection 

Area and SAC stands for Special Area of Conservation) 

• Thorpe Pit No 1 – Ramsar site 

• South West London Waterbodies – SPA 

• Thames Basin Heaths – SPA 

• Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham – SAC 

• Windsor Forest & Great Park - SAC 

10.7 Nationally Protected Sites: (please note that SSSI stands for Site of Special Scientific 

Interest and NNR stands for National Nature Reserve) 

• Basingstoke Canal - SSSI 

• Chobham Common - SSSI, plus NNR 

Page | 100 


• Langham Pond - SSSI 

• Thorpe Hay Meadow - SSSI 

• Thorpe Park No.1 Gravel Pit - SSSI 

• Windsor Forest – SSSI 

10.8 There are also a number of sites within the Borough which have more local or regional 

importance. This includes 35 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs). These 

sites are designated locally for their wildlife importance. Two Local Nature Reserves 

(LNRs) also exist in the Borough. LRNs generally support wildlife or geological features 

that are of special interest locally. The locations of all of these designations is shown in 

the two figures below: 

Figure 18-European and RAMSAR designated sites with components in or adjacent to the 


Page | 101 


Figure 19- National and County designations in the Borough 

10.9 The Surrey Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) identifies targets and actions for priority 

habitats and species in Surrey and delivers actions through partnership working. The 

aims of the Surrey BAP are to conserve and enhance the biological diversity of Surrey 

and contribute to conserving and enhancing both national and international biodiversity. 

10.10 The Urban Biodiversity Action Plan (UBAP) for Surrey aims to safeguard and enhance 

the biodiversity found where people live and in doing so improve the quality of peoples’ 

lives through contact with, appreciation of, and involvement in nature conservation. It 

aims to contribute towards making development more sustainable by reducing the 

imprint that urban areas make on the rest of the county. 

Page | 102 



10.11 Clearly, the Local Plan could have an impact on the designated nature sites located 

within or close to the Borough. The impact of additional development could be both 

direct through the impact from recreation (due to increased housing numbers) and 

land-take, and in-direct impacts from increased traffic and air pollution. 

10.12 Some of the sites are protected by international and national laws that prevent 

competent authorities such as Runnymede Borough Council from agreeing to any plan 

or project that might be likely to cause a significant effect without first carrying out an 

Appropriate Assessment. Appropriate Assessments assess whether the impacts of any 

plan or project in combination with other plans would adversely affect the integrity of 

the site in terms of its nature conservation objectives. The Local Plan therefore has a 

role in determining that any proposals within it will not adversely affect the designated 

nature sites. 

10.13 The Local Plan’s SA/SEA could also form the basis for trigger of other national 

legislation such as Environmental Impact Assessment. 


10.14 There are no known plans to designate any further nature sites in or adjacent to the 

Borough at the current time (either internationally, nationally, regionally or locally 

designated sites). 


10.15 As there are no known plans to designate any further nature sites in or adjacent to the 

Borough at the current time, this section is not applicable in this instance. 


10.16 The main risks to this capacity for this infrastructure are discussed in the Habitats 

Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the emerging Local Plan and summarised in the 

table below. 

Conclusion 


IDPR026 Air Quality High High 

IDPR027 Water Quality Low High 

IDPR028 Species Disturbance High High 

IDPR029 Water Quantity High High 

10.17 Overall, this existing infrastructure is considered to shape the character of the Borough. 

Their continued protection will help ensure that the intrinsic qualities of the Borough are 

not lost over the plan period. 

Suitable alternative natural green space (SANGS) 


10.18 The Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) was classified as an SPA 

on 9th March 2005. The SPA comprises an area of lowland heath and woodland and is 

a habitat protected under UK and European law, supporting a characteristic landscape 

and distinctive flora and fauna under threat and in decline. It is referred to as a 

"European Site" in terms of Habitats Regulations (see below at 11.20). It is classified as 

a SPA under the European Birds Directive (2009/147/EC). 

10.19 The SPA extends over 11 local planning authorities in Surrey, Berkshire and 

Hampshire and comprises a network of 13 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) of 

Page | 103 


predominantly lowland heath land and woodland. TBH SPA is designated because of 

the presence of breeding populations of three bird species: Dartford Warblers, 

Woodlarks and Nightjars. These birds nest on or near the ground and as a result they 

are very susceptible to predation of adults, chicks and eggs (particularly by cats, rats 

and crows) and to disturbance from informal recreational use, especially walking and 

dog walking. 

10.20 Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural 

habitats and wild fauna and flora (“the Habitats Directive”) requires Member States to 

take appropriate steps to avoid, in Special Areas of Conservation, the deterioration of 

natural habitats and the habitats of species and disturbance of species for which sites 

have been designated, in respect of consideration of new plans or projects. This article 

is considered by the Commission as being one of the most important of the 24 articles 

of the Habitats Directive. It states that it: “…determines the relationship between 

conservation and land use” (European Commission, 2000). 

10.21 Nationally, TBHSPA is protected in law by virtue of the Conservation of Habitats and 

Species Regulations 2010 (“the Habitats Regulations”). These regulations place a 

positive statutory duty on all Competent Authorities (“CA”) 34 not to agree to or issue a 

consent, permission or other authorisation for a plan or project not directly connected 

with or necessary to the management of a European site, where the CA is unable to 

conclude that its issue will not adversely effect the integrity of that European site 35 by 

way of a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). Neither Directive nor Regulations 

differentiate between the levels of protection afforded to any of the European sites 

within the UK once duly identified. It is commonly accepted that Regulation 102, 103 

and 105 capture the duty set by Article 6(3) and (4), but not the general regime of 

protection as set by Article 6 (2). 

10.22 The Habitat Regulations establish a set of 'step-wise' procedures for decision-making 

by "competent authorities" (the Borough Council being one), which are relevant to the 

determination of applications for planning permission. The requirements of the Habitats 

Regulations overlay the normal planning consent process and override it to the extent 

they are applicable. 

10.23 The impacts of increasing recreational disturbance as a result of new residents or an 

increasingly mobile ageing population with more leisure time have been key concerns 

of Natural England for some time. Natural England’s particular concern, which is 

relevant to the Local Plan, is the likely significant effect that recreational disturbance 

can have on the TBHSPA. Since May 2006 Natural England have sought to encourage 

the local authorities surrounding such areas to adopt an approach as set out in the 

Draft Delivery Plan (DDP) when dealing with new residential development within 5 

kilometres of TBHSPA. 

10.24 Natural England’s premise is that increased recreational pressure, particularly dog 

walking, has a detrimental impact on ground nesting bird populations. It contended 

during 7 days of technical meetings in support of the South East Plan EIP 36 that further 

residential developments within 5 kilometres of the edge of TBH SPA would exacerbate 

such pressures either in their own right or in combination. A Draft Delivery Plan once 

adopted by Local Authorities removed Natural England’s holding objection to relevant 

34 CA's are defined within Regulation 6 of the Regulations and include virtually any authority with the power to issue or give 

consent, permission or other authorisation. CA's include Local Planning Authorities [LPA's], Statutory Bodies, such as English 

Nature, and the Environment Agency, Regional Planning Bodies such as SEERA, the Planning Inspectorate [PINS] and the UK 

Government and others. 

35 See Regulation. 9 of the Habitats Regulations 

36 These meeting took place between 21 November 2006 and 2 February 2007 under Inspector Peter Burley appointed as 

Assessor for the South East Plan considering implications of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA for future housing development in 

the London Fringe and Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley sub-regions. 

Page | 104 


esidential development. This has now been replaced with the Delivery Framework 

(DF). 

10.25 The DF continues to prevent any new residential development within an area some 400 

metres from the boundary of the TBH SPA as well as advocating mitigation measures 

for development within 400 metres to 5 kilometres boundary area (this is known as the 

zone of influence). The primary measure is the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural 

Green Space (SANGS). The Plan sets down specific thresholds for the provision of 

such SANGS space as well as guidance on the nature and breakdown of this space. 

10.26 The net effect of compliance with the requirements of the DF is that Natural England 

will continue not objecting to planning approvals that are not supported by an 

appropriate assessment as they believe that compliance with the DF avoids the need to 

carry out an appropriate assessment. All affected local authorities have in some way 

published and rely on SANGS Planning Guidance Notes – the Council published its 

Supplementary Planning Guidance in 2008 (Revised 2009). 

10.27 The existing SANGS within the Borough are as follows: 

• St Ann’s Hill Open Space: an open space located in Chertsey with a total 

size of 21.2 hectares. It attracts visitors from across the Borough for 

principally dog walking and picnicking as well as visitors to the historic hill fort. 

The site has good access and paths with a Nature trail approx ¾ a mile in 

length. The area is well wooded and contains a wide variety of trees and 

plants with wild flowers, fungi etc in season. Many different birds and wildlife 

are visible as you walk around the site. There are picnic areas and viewpoints 

located around St Ann’s Hill. The main picnic area is within the Dingle; a 

sheltered and level grass area enclosed by trees and is accessed by the St 

Ann’s Hill Road at access point 2. Currently there are off-street car parking 

spaces at access point 3, for about 5 cars. Visitors also park at access point 

2, along the St Ann’s Hill Road, this also only offers limited parking. 

• Ether Hill/Queenwood: combines a large wooded area and adjoining 

recreational space that is home to the local cricket and bowls club and other 

leisure facilities. The woodland consists of deciduous trees that form and 

surround Ether Hill, and a frame network of bridleways and paths (formal and 

informal) that connect with other open spaces, offering dog walkers and 

ramblers a number of routes to walk. This site attracts a range of visitors and 

offers views across Queenswood Golf course with the woodland itself skirting 

the Ottershaw Memorial fields. The recreational facilities provide a number of 

leisure activities for the local community, including play facilities, multi use 

rooms used by local groups such as the scout and guide groups and games 

court. The site is staffed seven days a week and is open to the public at all 

times. Two generous sized parking areas are available at either end of the 

site from Foxhills Road. 

• Ottershaw Chase/Timber Hill/Chaworth Copse: located on either side of 

the Guildford Road (A320). This site is predominately used by dog walkers 

and ramblers from the nearby residential area, with some houses backing 

onto the site. A large car park is within Timber Hill and so attracts passing 

traffic as a respite area. Footpaths intersect all three sites, with a selection of 

routes of varying distance on offer to the public, catering for all ages and level 

of fitness. All three areas are woodland, home to a variety of trees with 

Ottershaw Chase being the most mature and is largely planted with Sweet 

Chestnuts and a number of Giant Redwood trees. The site attracts various 

species of wildlife and is a source of interest for younger visitors as they walk 

around the trails. 

Page | 105 


• Hare Hill open space: divides the two settlements of Ottershaw and 

Addlestone and consists of 13.5 hectares of open grass, shrub and 

woodland. This varied setting makes this site ideal for rambling, dog walkers 

and leisure activities; visitors are predominately from the neighbouring areas 

and use the site mainly for dog walking and walking. The site is accessed 

from Spinney Hill and has a number of housing estates backing onto the open 

space area, local residents gain access to the site from a number of entrance 

points around the site. Parking is however only available on adjoining 

residential roads. The mosaic of habitats provides an array of wildlife to see, 

providing an invaluable source for research and teaching conservation to 

pupils from the local schools. 

• Homewood Park: located in Chertsey and was surveyed alongside the 

existing sites. The site is 23.4 hectares in size and can be accessed from the 

Stonehill road, where the main car park is, another pedestrian access is off 

the Guildford Road. Limited residential parking is also available near the 

Guildford road point. Homewood Park has a variety of planting, trees and 

grassland, with a wooded area; informal paths provide trails to follow. The 

majority of visitors are from the surrounding area of Chertsey, nearby 

residential areas supply dog walkers and walkers, as well as visitors from the 

near by St Peters Hospital and offices within the site. A nature trail starts and 

finishes at the main car park, with the potential to extend this to link this into a 

wider network of paths within the site. 

• Chertsey Meads (agreed in principle as a SANG with Natural England if 

a further SANG is required over the plan period to support residential 

development)): Chertsey Meads is a Council owned public open space of 

approximately 71 hectares, which lies between the River Thames and River 

Bourne, half a kilometre east of Chertsey town at the end of Mead Lane. RBC 

manages the Meads in partnership with the Chertsey Meads Management 

Liaison Group. The primary aim of this group is to provide the Council with 

scientific, natural history and other advice on the conservation, management 

and recreational use of Chertsey Meads. The Meads are a much loved 

landscape feature especially for dog walkers, horse riders and families 

visiting the popular play area or picnic areas. The natural qualities of the 

Meads provide a contrast to the more formal parks nearby. A total of well over 

400 species of plants have been recorded on the site. In spring there is a 

spectacular display of colours from the flowers, grasses and sedges, which 

continues long into the summer. The Meads also provide a home to a diverse 

range of birds, a total of 108 species have been recorded over a number of 

years. These include birds typical of farmland such as Bullfinch, Lesser 

Whitethroat and Skylark. Also found here are species that use the reed beds 

like the Reed Bunting, Sedge Warbler and Reed Warbler. There are two car 

parks on site. 

10.28 In addition a SANG has been provided as part of the Franklands Drive development in 

Rowtown (allowed at Public Inquiry in 2006). This SANG is known as Strawberry Hill. 

10.29 The last published survey of the SANGS in the Borough was carried out in 2009. The 

SANGS surveyed at this time are shown in black text. The remainder of the SANGS in 

the above list (shown in red text) have been introduced since 2009. Survey work has 

recently been carried out in 2012, and at this time, Chertsey Meads was also surveyed 

as a SANG (the results of this survey will be published in 2013). 

10.30 Overall, it was found in the 2009 survey that walking and dog walking remain the main 

reason for people visiting the SANGS sites within the Borough. Visitor numbers on sites 

that have been surveyed in 2009 have been maintained or have increased since 2006. 

Page | 106 



The exception to this was Timber Hill where a slight decrease in visitor numbers was 

found since it was surveyed since 2006. The majority of visitors to the site were found 

to either arrive on foot or by car. 

10.31 The Local Plan confirms in Location Policy 2 (LP02) that the Local Plan will aim to 

deliver on average 161 units per annum between the years of 2011 and 2026, including 

1500 units at the former DERA site. A number of these new dwellings will be within 

5km of the TBHSPA. 

10.32 Local Plan Core Strategy policy SP07 is concerned with the Thames Basin Heath 

Special Protection Area. The policy replicates DF advice approved by Natural England 

and currently being followed by the Council that permits the approval of new residential 

development between 400m and 5km of the Thames Basin Heath SPA. Development 

at the former DERA site is however singled out by the policy as ‘exceptional’, in that it 

requires a bespoke solution. The Local Plan's SA/SEA also triggered the requirement 

for a HRA assessment in relation to policy LP01, LP02 and LP08. 


10.33 The Council will continue to require, as part of an agreement for the development of 

new dwellings within the 5 km zone, contributions to enable enhancements to be 

Borough’s SANGS over the plan period to be funded. In addition, it will be necessary to 

ensure that existing SANGS are maintained and, as such, a contribution to 

maintenance will be required. Finally, in recognition of the ability to develop sites, 

previously constrained by the SPA designation, the Council will require a financial 

contribution to recognise the value unlocked by allowing development to proceed. At 

the current time, a flat rate tariff of £1000 per unit in this regard. 

10.34 As noted elsewhere in this report, it is forecasted that over the plan period, a maximum 

of 4512 units could be delivered in the Borough. 3009 of these units would be in the 

400m-5km zone of influence for the TBHSPA (zone B). Of these 3009 units, DERA 

(1500 units) and Franklands Drive (350 units) will provide their own on site SANGS and 

hence 1850 units need to be deducted. This leaves a possible 1159 units which could 

potentially be delivered in zone B. A number of these units have already been granted 

planning permission (although they may not have been erected), and have already paid 

the necessary financial contributions to safeguard the integrity of the TBHSPA. When 

these units are also deducted from the total, it is estimated that 699 units could come 

forward in zone B over the plan period. 

10.35 RBC has produced a capital works programme and maintenance schedule for the 

Borough’s SANGS for the next 5 years. These works will principally involve improving 

the overall quality of the sites via habitat creation and improvement, and management 

works. The works planned are detailed in Appendix 4. 

10.36 Generally, the quality and amount of the SANGS within the Borough will need to be 

assessed at regular intervals over the course of the Local Plan to identify whether 

additional capacity is required to be provided to support increases in the number of 

residential units within zone B (over and above that amount of development forecasted 

above), or whether further works are required to ensure the quality of the SANGS is 

maintained. 

10.37 In addition, any development at the former DERA site will provide its own SANG. This 

is to meet with Natural England’s requirements. 

Page | 107 



10.38 The cost of providing a new SANG as part of the development at the former DERA site 

will be met by the developer. The cost of the remainder of the works required to the 

Borough’s SANGS 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF066 

IDPF067 

IDPF068 

Description 

Provision of a new SANG as part of 

the development at the former DERA 

site 

Capital works at Timber Hill and 

Chaworth Copse 

Capital works at St Ann’s Hill 

Estimated Cost 

Unknown 

Key 

Provider(s) 

Crest 

Nicholson 

£19,500 over next 5 years RBC 

£140,000 over next 5 

years 

RBC 

IDPF069 Capital works at Ottershaw Chase £20,000 over next 5 years RBC 

IDPF070 

Capital works at Ether Hill and 

Queenwood 


IDPF071 Capital works at Hare Hill £46,000 over 5 years RBC 

IDPF072 Capital works at Homewood Park £88,500 over 5 years RBC 

IDPF073 

IDPF074 

IDPF075 

IDPF076 

Promotional leaflets at Homewood 

Park 

Cost of monitoring/visitor surveys, 

photo monitoring before and after 

works and updating/development of 

site management plans 

Habitat maintenance management 

works 

Reactive maintenance works across 

all sites 

£1,250 RBC 


£102,500 over next 5 

years 

RBC 

£40,000 over 5 years RBC 

IDPF077 Cost of endowment over plan period £699,000 over plan period Developers 

TOTAL COSTS 

£1271,750 (although this 

total cost is made up of a 

capital programme of 

works to the Borough’s 

SANGS which spans a 5 

year period only) 

10.39 It should be noted that when forecasting what the cost of providing and maintaining the 

Borough’s SANGS will be over the entire plan period, clearly, there is an element of 

uncertainty as to what works will be required as one looks further into the future. If 

however, the capital works and maintenance works forecasted over the next 5 years 

(up to 2017) are used to estimate future costs, it is estimated that the cost of the capital 

works would be in the region of £1,032,600 over the plan period and the planned 

maintenance works £246,000. The cost of the endowment over the plan period is 

estimated to be in the region of £699,000. This would make a total of £1,977,600. 

Clearly however, this figure must be used with caution at this stage, and the cost of the 

capital and maintenance works will need to be regularly reviewed over the plan period. 

It should be noted that the cost of the reactive maintenance works have not been 

factored into this estimation as the Council’s Leisure department has confirmed that it is 

likely that these works would be required at the sites whether they were designated as 

SANGs or not. 

Page | 108 



10.40 Given that the TBHSPA is given protection by European law, the risk to it over the plan 

period is considered low. This assumes however that the unproven regulations 

avoidance measures work. The Council will have to continue to be satisfied that any 

new development in the Borough over the plan period is not likely to have a significant 

effect on the TBHSPA. The Council’s strategy will continue to be reviewed, in 

consultation with Natural England over the plan period. 

Conclusion 


IDPR030 

Regulations avoidance measures are 

not proven to work 

10.41 At the current time, the provision of SANGS within the Borough is preventing new 

development in the Borough from having a significant effect on the TBHSPA. The 

quality and amount of SANGS within the Borough will continue to be monitored and the 

Council’s strategy reviewed in regard to the TBHSPA over the plan period. 

Natural and semi-natural green space 


10.42 Natural and semi-natural green space includes woodlands, urban forestry, scrub, 

grasslands (e.g. downlands, commons, meadows), wetlands, open and running water 

and wastelands. Semi natural green space also includes SANGS although the function 

and management of these spaces is different to that of semi-natural green spaces 

generally. Such spaces have a role to play in wildlife conservation, encouraging 

biodiversity, and environmental education and awareness. 

High 

High 

Page | 109 


Figure 20 -natural and semi urban green spaces-300m zones surrounding spaces 

10.43 Natural England employs the following definition for natural green space, ‘places where 

human control and activities are not intensive so that a feeling of naturalness is allowed 

to predominate. Natural and semi-natural greenspace exists as a distinct typology but 

also as discrete areas within the majority of other greenspace typologies’ (Nature 

nearby: Accessible Natural Greenspace Guidance, Natural England, 2010) 

10.44 Among the Borough’s natural and semi-natural green spaces are 5 Sites of Special 

Scientific Interest (SSSI), 35 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance, 1,625.4 

hectares of woodland (which equates to approximately 21% of the Borough’s area) and 

2 Local Nature Reserves. 

10.45 The only definitive standard for natural and semi-natural areas is the Natural England 

Accessible Natural Green Space Standard (ANGSt). This suggests that there should be 

at least 2 ha of accessible natural green space per 1,000 population not more than 300 

Page | 110 


metres (a 5 minute walk) from home. Figure 20 below shows the parts of the Borough 

within 300m of accessible natural green space. The Council’s Open Space Study 

(2010) states that there are 1177.59 hectares of natural and semi-natural green spaces 

in the Borough (1064.57ha of this is accessible-i.e. with people not having to pay a fee 

to enter, and freely accessible to members of the public). 

10.46 The Open Space Study concludes that overall approximately 12.70ha of accessible 

natural and semi-natural green spaces per 1000 population is provided in the Borough. 

This is a significantly greater amount than suggested as the minimum by ANGSt. 

10.47 Hence one of the conclusions of the Open Space Study is that the Borough as a whole 

has large provision of accessible Natural and Semi-Natural Urban Green Spaces. It 

should be noted however that the broad location areas of Virginia Water and Egham, 

were found to have a greater accessible provision than the broad location areas of 

Addlestone and Chertsey. The quality of these spaces has been recognised as being 

mostly medium or low (assessment criteria were accessibility (e.g. disabled access, 

locality to public transport and signage); Cleanliness; Facilities; Safety; and Overall 

Quality). It was concluded that it is important to improve the quality of these green 

spaces, as this types of green spaces were identified as popular destinations in the 

study questionnaires given to residents. 


10.48 The Local Plan confirms in Location Policy 2 (LP02) that the Local Plan will aim to 

deliver on average 161 units per annum between the years of 2011 and 2026, including 

1500 units at the former DERA site. A number of these new dwellings will be within 

5km of the TBHSPA. 

10.49 Local Plan Core Strategy policy SP07 is concerned with the Thames Basin Heath 

Special Protection Area. The policy replicates advice approved by Natural England and 

currently being followed by the Council that permits the approval of new residential 

development between 400m and 5km of the Thames Basin Heath SPA. Development 

at the former DERA site is however singled out by the policy as ‘exceptional’, in that it 

requires a bespoke solution. The Local Plan Core Strategy's SA/SEA could also form 

the basis for trigger of other national legislation such as Environmental Impact 

Assessment. 

10.50 The Local Plan Core Strategy also recognises the importance of a green infrastructure 

network generally, including natural and semi-natural green spaces. 


10.51 As part of the development of the former DERA site, a network of formal and informal 

green infrastructure will be provided. Some of the green infrastructure provided will fall 

within the category of semi natural green space. 

10.52 In addition, works are proposed at the Cabrera Trust land in Virginia Water if the 

funding becomes available. The planned works are as follows: 

• further coppicing work along the riverside walk 

• new footbridge on riverside walk 

• update interpretation/information boards along riverside walk 

• review and update of the nature trail posts and leaflets along the riverside 

Walk 

• re-routing of boardwalk away from eroding bank alongside riverside walk 

10.53 Works are also proposed at Chertsey Meads and St Ann’s Hill although these works 

have been discussed elsewhere in this chapter. 

Page | 111 



10.54 The provision of any semi-natural greenspace at the former DERA site would be 

funded by the developer. 

10.55 Proposed works on the Cabrera Trust land would cost in the region of £42,500. It is 

possible that some of the funding may be provided through the Cabrera Trust. 

10.56 The costs and sources of funding for the works proposed to the SANGS in the Borough 

have already been detailed elsewhere in this chapter. 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF078 

IDPF079 

IDPF080 

IDPF081 

IDPF082 

IDPF083 


Description 

Provision of semi-natural greenspace 

as part of the DERA development 

Cabrera Trust land-further coppicing 

work along the riverside walk 

Cabrera Trust land-new footbridge 

on riverside walk 

Cabrera Trust land—update 

interpretation/information boards 

along riverside walk 

Cabrera Trust land-review and 

update of the nature trail posts and 

leaflets 

Cabrera Trust land – re routing of 

boardwalk away from eroding bank 

alongside riverside walk 

Estimated 

Cost 

Unknown 

£20,000 

£6,000 

£2,500 

£4,000 

£10,000 

Key 

Provider(s) 

Developer 

funded 

RBC/Cabrera 

Trust 

RBC/Cabrera 

Trust 

RBC/Cabrera 

Trust 

RBC/Cabrera 

Trust 

RBC/Cabrera 

Trust 

10.57 The biggest risks to this type of infrastructure relate to total loss or reduction in quality. 

This would have a knock on effect for the general public, the character of the Borough 

and for biodiversity. A number of the spaces within the Borough which form part of the 

network of natural and semi-natural green spaces are however protected by European 

or national laws; given regional or local level protection; or are protected through 

various other mechanisms (in relation to SANGS, for example). As such, the risk of 

total loss occurring is low. It is possible however, that some of the spaces could 

decrease in quality if not managed properly (in particular the semi-natural green 

spaces). 

Conclusion 


IDPR031 Loss or reduction in quality Low High 

10.58 Overall, it is considered that there are sufficient natural and semi natural green spaces 

within the Borough to accommodate the forecasted level of development over the plan 

period (providing that DERA provides this type of green space as part of its green 

infrastructure package). As noted in the Open Spaces Survey (2010) however, there is 

potential to improve some of the existing natural and semi natural green spaces within 

the Borough over the Plan period. 

Amenity Open Space 


10.59 These types of spaces are most commonly (but not exclusively) located in housing 

areas and include informal recreation spaces, green spaces in and around housing and 

village greens. The Open Space Survey 2010 states that there are some 63.49ha of 

accessible amenity green space within the Borough (it is considered that the terms 

Page | 112 


amenity open space as used in the IDP and amenity green space as used in the Open 

Space Survey refer to the same types of spaces. As such, the conclusions in the Open 

Space Study can be relied upon in this report). 

10.60 Generally, the amenity open space within the Borough was found in the Open Space 

Survey (2010) to be of medium quality. Poor accessibility was identified for amenity 

open space for residents of the Virginia Water area although it has been identified that 

there is a comparatively low population. It was also found that in the Chertsey area 

there is a smaller provision of amenity open space per 1000 population than was noted 

in the other areas considered (the green space available is of medium quality). 


10.61 There are policies in the Local Plan which relate to the location of development (LP01 

to LP08) and the design of development (SP05). Details may come forward in the 

future which contain thresholds for new development where amenity open space is 

required to be provided. 


10.62 Amenity open space will be provided as part of the development at the former DERA 

site. This will form part of the overall package of green infrastructure which is expected 

as part of the overall scheme. 


10.63 Any amenity open space provided as part of the development at the former DERA site 

would be funded by the developer. There are no known plans to provide any other 

amenity green spaces within the Borough over the plan period at the current time. 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF084 


Description 

Amenity space to be provided at the 

former DERA site 

Estimated 

Cost 

Unknown 

Key 

Provider(s) 

Developer 

funded 


This would have a knock on effect for the general public and the character of the 

Borough. A number of the existing amenity open spaces within the Borough are 

however privately owned by public bodies (i.e. a number of the amenity open spaces in 

the Borough are Council owned). As responsible landowners, the risk of the spaces 

being lost or degraded is considered to be low (unless their total or partial loss can be 

justified on the basis that they are surplus to requirements). Amenity open spaces in 

housing developments are normally subject to private management agreements, and 

again therefore, it is considered that there is a low risk of these spaces being lost or 

degraded. 

Conclusion 


IDPR032 Total loss Low Low 

IDPR033 Reduction in quality Low Low 

10.65 Overall, it is considered that there is a sufficient provision of amenity open spaces 

within the Borough at the current time. Amenity open space will be provided at the 

former DERA site to support this large new development. Other, smaller developments 

in the Borough’s Urban Areas could utilise existing amenity open spaces which exist. 

Capacity of these existing amenity green spaces will need to be assessed during the 

plan period to ensure that growth will not exceed capacity. 

Page | 113 


Chapter 11. Leisure Facilities 

Introduction 

11.1 This chapter will consider the outdoor and indoor leisure facilities in the Borough. In 

each sub chapter, the existing provision and capacity will be analysed, as well as the 

impacts of the forecasted development on existing provision and capacity over the plan 

period. Any known future provision of facilities will be detailed where known, as well as 

the costs of any planned infrastructure and sources of funding. 

Outdoor leisure facilities 


11.2 Outdoor sports facilities is a wide-ranging category of open space and includes natural 

and artificial surfaces either publicly or privately owned, which are used for sport and 

recreation. Examples include playing pitches, athletics tracks, bowling greens, water 

sport sites and tennis courts. The primary purpose is participation in outdoor sports. 

11.3 The Borough contains a number of such facilities including a range of sports pitches 

and hard court areas (including tennis courts and multi-use games areas). There are 

also 6 golf courses in the Borough- at Wentworth Golf Club, Laleham Golf Club, Fox 

Hills Golf Club, Queenwood Golf Club, Abbeymoor Golf Club, Top Golf Game Centre. 

Given the location of the Borough adjacent to the River Thames, there are also a 

number of water sports sites including rowing, and skiff and punting clubs. 

11.4 In total, the Open Space Study (2010) found that there are 57 sites for outdoor sports in 

the Borough which cover an area of 674.75 ha. Of this however, only 31.37ha of the 

outdoor sports facilities were found to be accessible to the public (accessible defined 

as not having to pay a fee to enter, and freely accessible to members of the public). 

11.5 Fields in Trust sets a benchmark standard recommendation for outdoor sport including 

playing pitches and parks of 1.6 ha per 1000 population. The Council’s Open Space 

Study (2010) found however that across the Borough there is a general under provision 

of accessible outdoor sports facilities with only 0.18ha of accessible outdoor sports 

facilities per 1000 population. Whilst Egham, Chertsey, Virginia Water and Addlestone 

(including not just the town centres but also all of the wards which fall within these 

broad settlements areas) were found to under provide outdoor sports facilities, the 

Addlestone area was found to have the largest under provision of such facilities. Whilst 

this may be the case however, the quality of the Borough’s outdoor sports facilities was 

found to be generally medium to high although quality does differ from facility to facility. 

Local Plan Core Strategy 

11.6 The location policies in the Borough confirm that development over the plan period will 

be focussed in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the former DERA site. SP06 is 

concerned with tourism, recreation and leisure facilities in the Borough and promotes 

recreation and leisure activities in town centres in particular. 


11.7 Despite the findings of the Open Space Study, at the current time there are no known 

plans to provide new outdoor leisure facilities in the Borough. 

11.8 In terms of improvements to existing facilities in the Borough, at Egham Leisure Centre, 

the replacement of the 5 a side football pitches is proposed. 

11.9 The following works are also required at the Council’s open spaces and parks: 

Victory Park 

• Improvement of the drainage at the football pitch at Victory Park 

Page | 114 


• Completion of erection of boundary fence along railway footpath 

• Resurfacing works to tennis courts, to include re marking out 

• Re-fencing and division of tennis courts to include kick boards 

• Resurfacing works to footpaths 

Heathervale Recreation Ground 

• Replacement of the park welcome sign 

• Resurfacing of footpaths (partial) 

• Boundary fence replacement (partial or whole) 

• Bow top fencing to play area 

• Extension/improvement of sports pavilion to accommodate children’s nursery 

and changing facilities and staff toilet 

Chertsey Recreation Ground 

• Replacement of cricket/football pavilion and provision of larger changing 

facilities 

• Bow top fencing for play area and paddling pool 

• Replacement of park welcome sign 

Abbeyfields and The Orchard, Chertsey 

• Bow top fencing to play area 

Ottershaw Memorial Fields 

• Resurfacing of tennis courts to include marking out 

• Re-fencing and division of tennis courts 

• Provision of a new interpretation board 

Runnymede Pleasure Grounds 

• Re surfacing pool paving with rubber 

• Replacement of splash pool with water park 

• Addition of play equipment for children with disabilities 

• Expansion of indoor café 

• Replacement of fencing around entrance, play area and rides area 

• Provision of new toilets in the bathing pavillion 

Charta Road Recreation Ground 

• Improvements at Charta Road Recreation Ground including BMX track 

• Provision of fencing and planting to screen boundary with football club 

Gogmore Park Farm 

• Provision of trim trail/fitness equipment 

• Local repairs to tarmac paths (including bridges) 

• Complete resurfacing of all paths 

Page | 115 


Other 

• Refurbishment/replacement of old/out of date play equipment at various 

Council owned parks and open spaces 

• Improvement/extension to skate park at Aviator Park 

• Provision of new youth equipment and landscaping at Bishops Way 

recreation ground 

• Replacement of equipment and provision of a new enlarged play space at 

Walton Leigh rec 

• Provision of children’s play space at Thorpe Lea open space 

11.10 It is considered reasonable to assume that a requirement of any development proposal 

at the former DERA site for a mixed use community will be to provide outdoor sports 

facilities to support the population of the new settlement. 


11.11 Any new outdoor sports facilities at the former DERA site would be funded by the 

developer. 

11.12 The replacement of fitness equipment at Addlestone and Egham Leisure Centres and 

the replacement of the 5 a side football pitches at Egham Leisure Centre would have a 

combined cost of £333,000. The works will be funded by RBC. 

11.13 Improvement of the drainage at the football pitch at Victory Park would cost in the 

region of £75,000. No sources of funding have been identified for these works at the 

current time. 

11.14 Refurbishment/replacement of old/out of date play equipment at various Council owned 

parks and open spaces would cost in the region of £400,000. 

11.15 The cost of the works proposed at Heathervale Recreation Ground would cost between 

£96,500 and £326,500. Runnymede Borough Council is most likely to fund these works 

although there are no funds available at this time. 

11.16 The total cost of the works proposed at Victory Park is approximately £175,000. 

Runnymede Borough Council is most likely to fund these works although there are no 

funds available at this time. 

11.17 The total cost of the works proposed at Chertsey Recreation Grounds would be 

approximately £146,500. Runnymede Borough Council is most likely to fund these 

works although there are no funds available at this time. 

11.18 The cost of the works proposed at Abbeyfields and The Orchard, Chertsey would be in 

the region of £10,000. Runnymede Borough Council is most likely to fund these works 


11.19 The cost of the proposed works at the Ottershaw Memorial Fields would be in the 

region of £42,000. Runnymede Borough Council is most likely to fund these works 


Funding 

ID 

IDPF085 

IDPF086 

IDPF087 

Description 

Replacement of 5 a side football pitches 

at Egham Leisure Centre 

Improvement of drainage at the football 

pitch at Victory Park 

Replacement of see saw at Victory Park 

which was removed in 2009 

Estimated 

Cost 

£120,000 

Key 

Provider(s) 

RBC/Achieve 

Lifestyle 

£75,000 RBC 

£7,500 RBC 

Page | 116 


IDPF088 

Completion of erection of boundary 

fencing along the railway footpath at 

Victory Park 

£10,000 RBC 

IDPF089 

IDPF090 

Resurfacing works to footpaths at 

Victory Park £20,000 RBC 

Resurfacing works to tennis courts to 

include re marking out at Victory Park £35,000 RBC 

IDPF091 

IDPF092 

Re-fencing and division of tennis courts 

to include provision of kick boards at 

Victory Park 

Refurbishment/replacement of old/out of 

date play equipment at various Council 

owned parks and open spaces 

£35,000 RBC 

£400,000 RBC 

IDPF093 

Outdoor recreation/open space 

provision as part of the development at 

the former DERA site 

Unknown 

Developer 

IDPF094 

IDPF095 

IDPF096 

IDPF097 

Replacement of the park welcome sign 

at Heathervale Rec £1,500 RBC 

Resurfacing of footpaths (partial) at 

Heathervale Rec £30,000 RBC 

Boundary fence replacement (partial or 

whole) at Heathervale Rec 

£20,000- 

£250,000 

RBC 

Bow top fencing to play area at 

Heathervale Rec £45,000 RBC 

IDPF098 

Extend/improve sports pavilion to 

accommodate children’s nursery and 

changing facilities and staff toilet at 

Heathervale Rec 

£65,000 RBC 

IDPF099 

Replacement of park welcome sign at 

Chertsey Recreation Ground £1,500 RBC 

IDPF100 

IDPF101 

Replacement of cricket/football pavilion 

and provision of larger changing 

facilities at Chertsey Recreation Ground 

Bow top fencing for play area and 

paddling pool at Chertsey Recreation 

Ground 

£120,000 RBC 

£25,000 RBC 

IDPF102 

IDPF103 

Bow top fencing to the play area at 

Abbeyfields and The Orchard, Chertsey £10,000 RBC 

Provision of a new interpretation board 

at Ottershaw Memorial Fields £2,000 RBC 

IDPF104 

Resurfacing of tennis courts to include 

re marking out at Ottershaw Memorial 

Fields 

£20,000 RBC 

IDPF105 

IDPF106 

IDPF107 

Re-fencing and division of tennis courts 

at Ottershaw Memorial Fields £20,000 RBC 

New toilets in bathing pavilion at 

Runnymede Pleasure Grounds £85,000 RBC 

Re surfacing of pool with rubber at 

Runnymede Pleasure Grounds £8,000 RBC 

Page | 117 


IDPF108 

IDPF109 

IDPF110 

IDPF111 

IDPF112 

IDPF113 

IDPF114 

IDPF115 

IDPF116 

IDPF117 

IDPF118 

IDPF119 

IDPF120 

IDPF121 


Replacement of splash pool with water 

park at Runnymede Pleasure Grounds £230,000 RBC 

Addition of play equipment for children 

with disabilities at Runnymede Pleasure 

Grounds 

£15,000 RBC 

Expansion of indoor café at Runnymede 

Pleasure Grounds £24,000 RBC 

Replacement of fencing around 

entrance, play area and rides area at 

Runnymede Pleasure Grounds 

£25,000 RBC 

Improvements/extension to skate park 

at Aviator Park £130,000 RBC 

Provision of new youth equipment and 

landscaping at Bishops Way recreation 

ground 

Replacement of equipment and 

provision of a new enlarged play space 

at Walton Leigh rec 

£85,000 RBC 

£110,000 RBC 

Provision of children’s play space at 

Thorpe Lea open space £80,000 RBC 

Provision of fencing and planting to 

screen boundary with football club at 

Charta Road rec 

£35,000 RBC 

Improvements to Charta Road rec 

including provision of a BMX track £180,000 RBC 

Improvements to Pooley Green Rec to 

include MUGA, play area, refurb and 

landscaping 

£320,000 RBC 

Local repairs to tarmac paths (including 

bridges) at Gogmore Park Farm £19,500 RBC 

Provision of trim trail/fitness equipment 

at Gogmore Park Farm £15,000 RBC 

Complete resurfacing of all paths at 

Gogmore Park Farm £150,000 

TOTAL COST 

Up to 

£3,009,500 


This would have a knock on effect for the general public and their ability to access 

outdoor sports facilities in the Borough. Given the relatively low number of sites in the 

Borough which are classified as sites for outdoor sports and recreation, it is considered 

that their total loss is unlikely. The reduction in the quality of individual sites is possible. 

Improvements are likely to depend on the availability of funding. 

RBC 


IDPR034 Total loss Low Low 

IDPR035 Reduction in quality High High 

Page | 118 


Conclusion 

11.21 Generally, in line with the findings of the Council’s Open Space Study (2010), new 

outdoor sports facilities will be need to be provided across the Borough over the plan 

period to meet the needs of existing communities and provide facilities for a growing 

population. This new provision will need to take place in the Borough’s existing centres 

at Egham, Chertsey, Addlestone and Virginia and the former DERA site, should it be 

redeveloped for a mixed used development as is forecasted. Improvements to existing 

outdoor sports facilities may also be appropriate in some cases. 

Indoor leisure facilities 


11.22 There is a range of indoor sport and recreation facilities across the Borough, including 

health & fitness suites, sports halls, swimming pools and indoor bowls clubs. 

11.23 In particular, a number of indoor sports take place at the Borough’s leisure centres. 

Leisure centre provision within Runnymede is mixed with both Council and privately or 

community owned facilities. Runnymede Borough Council owns Egham and 

Addlestone Leisure Centres, although in April 2011 both the centres were transferred to 

Achieve Lifestyle, a local leisure trust, which now operates the centres on a day to day 

basis under a 15 year lease. Egham Leisure Centre has a main hall, gym, dance 

studio, grass pitches, squash, crèche, 3G artificial pitches and tennis courts. 

Addlestone Leisure Centre is located within the grounds of Jubilee High School and 

includes a main hall, gym, dance studio, spinning room and outdoor pitches. Over 

recent years there has been considerable investment into the two centres with a £1.5m 

extension to Addlestone Leisure Centre and £600,000 spent on new artificial pitches 

and gym equipment at Egham Leisure Centre. Both projects aimed at delivering a 

better standard of facility and increasing usage. 

11.24 Other private members clubs and community facilities in the Borough include the River 

Bourne Health Club in Chertsey, Runnymede on Thames Hotel, Foxhills Golf and 

Country Club, Fullbrook School dual use centre and Egham Bowls Club. All of these 

clubs provide a range of indoor sports facilities. 

11.25 The community halls within the Borough also provide for a range of clubs and activities, 

some of which are sports related. Some of the halls within the Borough are operated by 

Runnymede Borough Council and others are run by local community groups and 

organisations. The Council owned halls are located in Chertsey, Egham Hythe and 

Thorpe and cater for a wide range of activities and clubs. The halls operated by 

community organisations also cater for a wide range of users and are located across 

the Borough, and include the Community Centre in Addlestone, New Haw Community 

Centre, Lyne Village Hall, Brox Hall in Ottershaw and St Jude’s Hall in Englefield 

Green. 


11.26 The location policies in the Local Plan confirm that development over the plan period 

will be focussed in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the former DERA site. SP06 is 

concerned with tourism, recreation and leisure facilities in the Borough and promotes 

recreation and leisure activities in town centres in particular. 


11.27 Egham Leisure Centre was built in the early 1970’s and has been subject to a number 

of extensions over the years. The Council’s Leisure department has advised that within 

the next 3 years, Achieve Lifestyle would like to install a swimming pool at the site and 

other additional facilities. The replacement of fitness equipment is also proposed at 

Egham and Addlestone Leisure Centres before 2015. 

Page | 119 


11.28 It is considered unlikely that there will be further provision of community halls in the 

Borough over the plan period unless there is a demand for new facilities as part of 

larger developments. The only site considered to generate sufficient demand for a new 

community hall at this time is considered to be at the former DERA site as part of the 

mixed use development forecasted. The Council’s Leisure Department advise that any 

new community halls should be multi-functional so that they can cater for as broad a 

range of activities as possible taking into account the peak time needs of specific 

groups for example older people, whose activities tend to be during the daytime, and 

working age residents whose activities tend to be during evenings and at weekends. 

11.29 A gym will be provided at the former DERA site as part of the mixed use development. 


11.30 Any community hall provided at the former DERA site would be initially funded by the 

developer. The gym at this site would also initially be funded by the developer. 

11.31 It is not yet known how the proposed installation of a swimming pool and other 

additional facilities at Egham Leisure Centre would be funded. Lottery funding may be 

applied for, money may be borrowed and/or RBC may fund some of works. It is 

estimated that the works would cost in the region of £7 million. 

11.32 It will cost £213,000 to replace the fitness equipment at Egham and Addlestone Leisure 

Centres. RBC will fund this new equipment. 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF122 

IDPF123 

IDPF124 

IDPF125 

IDPF126 


Description 

Provision of a community facilities at 


Provision of a private gym at the 


Installation of a swimming pool and 

other additional facilities at Egham 

Leisure Centre 

Replacement of fitness equipment at 

Egham Leisure Centre 

Replacement of fitness equipment at 

Addlestone Leisure Centre 

Estimated 

Cost 

Unknown 

Unknown 

£7 million 

£78,000 

£135,000 

Key 

Provider(s) 

Developer 

funded 

Developer 

funded 

RBC/Achieve 

Leisure 

RBC/Achieve 

Lifestyle 

RBC Achieve 

Lifestyle 

11.33 The biggest risks to this type of infrastructure are considered to be low usage caused 

by people not being able to afford membership due to the current economic downturn, 

and a lack of available funding leading to facilities becoming tired. This could ultimately 

result in the facilities closing down. 

11.34 Given however the range in choice in facilities in the Borough at the current time and 

the range of packages offered (pay as you go gym membership, full membership, 

membership for classes only, use of certain facilities (i.e. squash courts) within a facility 

without full membership etc), which provide for the needs of a wide range of people, it 

is considered that this is a low risk outcome in this instance. This is not to say however, 

that refurbishment and/or expansion of existing facilities may need to take place over 

the plan period. 


IDPR036 

Closure of facilities due to low 

membership or lack of funding 

Low 

Low 

Page | 120 


Conclusion 

11.35 It is considered that at the current time there is a range of indoor sports facilities 

provided within the Borough. Whilst some of the existing facilities may need to be 

upgraded over the plan period, the only known additional facility proposed to come 

forward over the plan period is at the former DERA site (this is excluding the 

refurbishment/re-provision of the Egham Leisure Centre). Any other proposals which 

come forward for indoor leisure facilities over the plan period will be considered on a 

case by case basis. 

Page | 121 


Chapter 12. Culture and Heritage 

Introduction 

12.1 This chapter considers the Borough’s cultural and heritage makeup, firstly looking at 

the historic and archaeological assets in the Borough and then moving on to consider 

how well served the Borough is in terms of museums, theatres, cinemas and the arts. 

In each sub chapter, the existing provision will be looked at, as well as likely future 

provision required to support growth over the plan period. Where new infrastructure is 

forecasted over the plan period, the provider and sources of funding will be stated 

(where known). 

Historic and Archaeological Assets 


12.2 Surrey’s rich heritage is made up of archaeological assets, buildings and structures, 

areas of landscape, cultural artefacts, memories and written, visual and oral archives. 

12.3 Runnymede itself has a long history with significant Bronze Age and Iron Age sites at 

Runnymede Bridge and Thorpe Lea Nurseries. The Domesday Book of 1086 shows 

that most of the towns and villages in Runnymede Borough then belonged to Chertsey 

Abbey, around which grew the historically important market town of Chertsey. 

12.4 In addition to this, the sealing of the Magna Carta in Runnymede in 1215 by King John 

remains a particularly powerful historic reference point for those living and working in 

the Borough. June 2015 will mark the 800th anniversary of this momentous occasion 

which has worldwide interest and heritage. This charter is acknowledged to be one 

of the most significant documents in human history because it has been central to 

establishing the rule of law/human rights throughout the Western world and beyond. 

This event effectively immortalised Runnymede as a location and a name. 

12.5 Windsor Great Park is a Royal Park which lies partly within the Borough and is 

managed by the Crown Estate. The park was once part of a vast Norman hunting forest 

which was enclosed in the late 13th century. The 2,020 hectares of parkland, which 

includes a Deer Park, is a varied landscape of formal avenues, gardens, woodland and 

open grassland. Over two and a half million people visit Windsor Great Park every year 

(the Royal Landscape website). 

12.6 Runnymede’s rich heritage forms an intrinsic part of the character of the Borough. This 

rich heritage is recognised by the 400 or so statutory listed buildings and structures 

within the Borough, including 4 Grade I listed properties: Runnymede Park, Tite Hill; 

Founder’s Building, Royal Holloway College, Egham Hill; Great Fosters, Stroude Road 

and Holloway Sanatorium, Stroude Road. A further 19 properties merit Grade II* listing. 

Furthermore, 23ha of the Borough is designated as having High Archaeological 

Potential. The Homestead Moat at Hamm Court Farm is a County site of 

Archaeological Interest. 

12.7 The Borough also contains 6 Conservation Areas, 7 Scheduled Ancient Monuments 

and 5 Historic Parks and Gardens including part of the Grade I listed Windsor Great 

Park discussed above (in which the Grade II* listed Savill Gardens is located). 

Page | 122 


Figure 21-(map 1 of 2) historic and archaeological assets in the Borough 

Page | 123 


Figure 22- (map 2 of 2) historic and archaeological assets in the Borough 




in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the former DERA site in Longcross. The 

forecasted development could potentially have implications for the historic and 

archaeological assets in the Borough. Chertsey in particular is renowned for its historic 

core and contains a considerable number of recognised heritage assets. Egham also 

contains a number of listed buildings and is located, in part, in a Conservation Area. 

Bowl Barrow is a scheduled ancient monument located at the former DERA site. 

Page | 124 


12.9 Strategic policy 5 (SP05)-‘Design’ is also considered to have material relevance, as it 

seeks to ensure that new development respects the built, natural and historic 

environment within the Borough. 


12.10 There is the potential for further archaeological assets to be uncovered over the plan 

period, additional buildings or structures to be listed and further historic information 

uncovered. This cannot however be predicted with any great certainty. 


12.11 Any developments over the plan period which would involve alterations to a listed 

building, or archaeological excavations, for example, would be funded by the site 

owner/developer involved. 


12.12 The main risk in this case is considered to be the historic and archaeological assets 

within the Borough being materially harmed or destroyed by new developments that 

come forward over the plan period. Whilst this is a distinct possibility, the planning 

process requires detailed information to be provided by developers when there is 

considered to be an identified risk to a historic or archaeological asset. In particular, 

this relates to sites which come forward for development with an area in excess of 0.4 

hectares, which are located in areas of high archaeological importance, and which 

include, or are in close proximity to, a listed building. This is considered to minimise the 

risk of harm or total destruction occurring. 

12.13 The risk of harm or total destruction occurring to heritage assets is however considered 

to increase for smaller developments which do not have the same trigger points for 

detailed information to be provided as noted in the paragraph above (for example, for 

some applications for extensions to dwellings, replacement dwellings, small housing 

developments). 

Conclusion 


IDPR037 

Harm or destruction to historic or 

archaeological assets 

Medium 

12.14 The existing historic and archaeological assets in the Borough form part of its intrinsic 

character. The impact of new development proposed over the plan period on the 

Borough’s historic and archaeological assets will need to be assessed on a case by 

case basis. Any costs of works to listed buildings or for archaeological excavations 

would normally be funded by the relevant site owner/developer. 

Museums, Theatres, Cinema and the Arts 


12.15 There are 2 museums in the Borough: The Chertsey Museum and Egham Museum. 

There are no theatres or cinemas however, with the nearest being in Woking (both 

cinema and theatre), Staines (cinema), Guildford (theatre and cinema) and Windsor 

(theatre). There are no art galleries within the Borough although the Borough is well 

served for the arts including local theatre groups, artists and literary groups. The 

Council in conjunction with Royal Holloway University run an annual Literary Festival 

with school workshops and on site readings and literary workshops. This has grown 

over the years and over 1,000 people participated in 2012. Furthermore, the 

Runnymede Art Society hold two major exhibitions annually (normally in the Literary 

Institute in Egham) and meet weekly for social painting. 

High 

Page | 125 


12.16 The Surrey Arts Partnership is a county-wide organisation, which includes other 

authorities and pools resources and expertise to roll out county wide programmes. 

Runnymede has in recent years received funding for a singing project at Geesemere 

Day Centre, an arts project in Englefield Green and the ‘Herald the Games’ event 

which involved working with schools and community groups in Egham to produce 

banners to celebrate the Olympics. 

12.17 There are a variety of other clubs, societies and events, which provide cultural 

opportunities in the Borough. The community halls in the Borough provide a venue for a 

wide range of activities, group meetings and for local community activities such as 

playgroups, drama groups, dance classes, slimming clubs, children's activities, youth 

projects, Darby and Joan clubs, indoor bowls and many more. 

12.18 Such facilities and activities make up part of the cultural offering to local communities. 

Culture is a wide ranging term however, and covers facilities and activities outside 

those considered above, for example, performing arts, visual arts and open spaces. 

Culture is seen as important to achieving sustainable communities, meeting diverse 

needs and offering a high quality of life and good services for all. 




in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the DERA site in Longcross. Up to 4512 dwellings 

could come forward in the Borough over the plan period, although this is a maximum 

possible scenario, untested against suitability and developability. 

12.20 Residents of new residential development (and perhaps users of any new commercial 

developments) will have the option to utilise the existing museums in the Borough and 

other cultural facilities/activities both inside and outside the Borough. 

12.21 Local Plan Core Strategy policy SP09 encourages the utilisation of modes of 

sustainable transport in the Borough for example public transport, and cycling. Such 

modes of transport are vital in helping people to access cultural events and facilities 

both inside and outside of the Borough. As well as cultural destinations in the Borough, 

Woking, Staines, Guildford and Windsor have a good supply of attractions and as such, 

public transport facilities inside the Borough are vital in helping residents access these 

centres as well as London, where a wide range of museums, theatres, music and the 

visual arts venues are also found. 


12.22 There is potential for these types of facilities to come forward as part of the mixed use 

development on the former Civic Offices site in Addlestone Town Centre. 


12.23 Any cultural facilities at the former Civic Offices site would be funded privately. 


12.24 The biggest risk to this type of infrastructure is its loss, due to competition from other 

centres and venues outside the Borough and/or lack of demand. It is considered 

reasonable to assume however that for a range of cultural activities (dance classes and 

social painting for example), people are likely to stay closer to home and use local 

classes and facilities where they exist. As such, a total loss of the cultural offering in the 

Borough over the plan period is considered to be a low risk scenario. 

12.25 It is acknowledged however that the Borough lacks any cinemas or theatres and other 

noteworthy types of destination (such as comedy clubs). As such, the Borough will 

always experience a high loss of expenditure to areas outside of the Borough for these 

Page | 126 


Conclusion 

types of cultural facilities. This trend will continue unless any growth in this area occurs 



IDPR038 

IDPR039 

Lack of demand for cultural 

facilities/activities in the Borough 

Total loss of cultural offering in the 


Medium 

Medium 

12.26 There is considered to be sufficient provision of cultural venues and activities in the 

Borough itself, and the area surrounding the Borough, to provide for the existing 

residents and the additional residents, which will accompany the increase in 

development proposed over the plan period. Whilst there are no known plans for any 

new facilities within the Borough at this stage, this is not to say that there will not be 

further opportunities for development or enhancement in this area over the plan period. 

Low 

Low 

Page | 127 


Chapter 13. Emergency Services 

Introduction 

13.1 This chapter considers emergency services provision in the Borough, specifically 

looking at: 

• existing provision and capacity/resources; 

• what the impacts on existing provision and capacity/resources are likely to be 

over the plan period; 

• role of local plan; 

• identification of where future provision will be required; and, 

• costs and sources of funding for any identified projects; 

13.2 The Police, Ambulance and Fire and Rescue Services will be considered individually. 

The chapter will also consider flooding and flood defences in the Borough given the 

significant threat of flooding in Runnymede and the impact of flooding events on the 

emergency services. 

Police 


13.3 Surrey Police are responsible for policing the county of Surrey. In Surrey there are a 

total of 46 police offices and stations in addition to the HQ in Guildford. 37 In Runnymede 

itself there are two police stations: Runnymede Divisional Headquarters in Addlestone 

and a police post at Egham. 

13.4 Surrey has one of the lowest levels of serious crime in the country and the Surrey 

Policing Report 2011-2014 states that local people have amongst the highest levels of 

confidence nationally in the service. In Runnymede itself, crime continues to run at 

comparatively low levels, and public confidence in the Police remains strong as 

evidenced through the Surrey Police customer survey data and the Geoff Berry 

Community Safety Survey (2010 and 2012 respectively). 

13.5 The Geoff Berry Associates Community Safety Survey 2012 found that where there are 

concerns, these tend to relate to quality of life type problems rather than. The highest 

levels of concern continue to be in relation to traffic-related issues (including speeding) 

and road safety. This ties in with the findings of the Runnymede Community Safety 

Strategy 2011-2014 which identifies that antisocial use of motor vehicles is one of the 

public’s main concerns (traffic congestion and speeding are the two highest rated 

problems in the Surrey Police Customer Review Survey). 

13.6 There are “hotspots” where perceived problems are greater than the Borough average 

(see Figure 23 below). The wards of Chertsey St. Ann’s, Egham Hythe and Englefield 

Green West appeared most often for various problems (speeding vehicles, parking on 

pavements, litter, disorder in public places etc) in the Geoff Berry survey, indicating that 

the level of concern is greatest in these areas. A lower level of concern was reported 

for Chertsey South & Rowtown, Chertsey Meads, Foxhills, Virginia Water and Egham 

Town. This is an indication of the lower levels of concern in these wards from residents. 

37 

Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Project Phase 1 Final Report, June 2009 

Page | 128 


Figure 23 - Crime hotspots in the Borough 

13.7 Whilst Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) reports have been generally decreasing, flytipping, 

graffiti and litter/ rubbish figures dominate the anti social behaviour that is reported. 

13.8 Drugs still have a relatively low profile in the Borough although the Runnymede 

Community Safety Strategy 2011-2014 reports that Runnymede could have an 

emerging problem with ketomine. This is therefore proposed to be closely monitored. 

This same survey also reports that Runnymede remains top of the table for the South 

East as a whole for “Increasing Risk” drinkers (formally Hazardous drinkers). 

13.9 The awareness of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and neighbourhood 

officers has increased significantly since 2007 and even more so since 2004. This 

reflects the considerable efforts put into the launch and operation of neighbourhood 

policing within the Borough. 


13.10 The increase in the number of new residential units in the Borough and population 

growth generally over the plan period has been highlighted elsewhere in this report. 

The location policies in the Local Plan; LP01-LP08, confirm where new development is 

Page | 129 


expected in the Borough up to 2026. Development would largely be focussed in the 

Borough’s Urban Areas, although the redevelopment of the former DERA site in 

Longcross is likely to be a specific consideration for the Police, as the development 

would substantially increase the population on the western side of the Borough. 

13.11 Strategic Policy 6 (SP06) which supports, promotes and encourages tourism, 

recreation and leisure provision within the Borough, and Strategic Policy 10 (SP10) 

which is concerned with development and flood risk are also considered to be relevant 

in this case as both flooding events and an increase in the number of tourists attracted 

to the Borough would no doubt impact on existing police resources. 

13.12 In terms of the new development proposed in the Borough over the plan period, 

Strategic Policy 5 (SP05) (which is concerned with design) is considered to be relevant, 

stating that proposals for new development should create safe and secure 

environments. Secured by Design and Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime 

Prevention provide further guidance in this regard. It is considered reasonable to 

assume that creating safe and secure developments which reduce opportunities for anti 

social behaviour would be welcomed by Surrey Police. 


13.13 Central Government Police funding will reduce by 20% in real terms by 2014-15. This is 

following the Government’s October 2010 Spending Review. Although in 2011, Surrey 

was the only Force in the country to increase officer numbers, recruiting 200 additional 

Police Constables. 

13.14 Surrey Police has undertaken some work to assess future demands on the service 

resulting from population changes and proposed housing development. This has been 

based on ONS 2006 mid-year estimates and dwelling-based projections based on the 

South East Plan. Whilst the South East Plan figures for housing growth in the Borough 

correlate with the 161 units which are proposed to be delivered in the draft Local Plan, 

as noted in chapter 6 of this report, it is possible that over the plan period, a greater 

number of units could come forward per annum. 

13.15 Surrey Police has stated that the increase in population and households forecasted 

across the County in the coming years is likely to have significant impacts on staffing 

and transport resources 38 . The exact demands of the predicted growth on the police 

force are however hard to predict as this is dependent on a range of factors including 

the type and location of dwellings built. Surrey Police advise that it is considered that 

development in North Surrey, Western Corridor and Dunsfold is most likely to have a 

significant impact on the demand for their services. 

13.16 Whilst Runnymede is located in North Surrey however, the Surrey Infrastructure 

Capacity Project Phase 1 Final Report, June 2009 shows that at the time of writing, 

both Addlestone and Egham Police Stations had spare capacity (in terms of facilities). 

Egham Police Station is now for sale for redevelopment. 

13.17 A number of Closed Circuit television (CCTV) cameras exist in the Borough to assist 

with the prevention of, and tackling of crime and disorder. The Council’s Community 

Safety Manager has confirmed that a number of the cameras in the Borough will 

require either upgrading or replacing over the plan period (it should be noted that the 

cameras only have a 3 year life span). 

38 

Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Project Phase 1 Final Report, June 2009 

Page | 130 


13.18 The following CCTV expansion programmes are also proposed if funding becomes 

available- 

• Rowtown (3 cameras to cover Walton Leigh Recreational Ground, local shops 

and Saw Pit Green) 

• Weybridge Industrial Estate (1 camera). 

• Ottershaw (1 camera). 

• Addlestone Moor/Woburn Hill roundabout (1 camera). 

• Thorpe Trading Estate (1 camera). 

13.19 Funding is also required for the following: 

• Junior Citizen Personal Safety Workbooks. This is an annual scheme where 

the books provide follow on learning tools for schools. The scheme is aimed 

at year 6 pupils, across all junior schools in the Borough; 

• MemoCam project – This is an ongoing scheme which provides extra support 

to individuals who have been victims of distraction burglaries, or who are 

thought to be extremely vulnerable to this practice. It is a multi agency project 

with support provided by Police and Age UK and benefits all areas of the 

Borough; 

• Support for community intervention projects such as The Biz; 

• Public information board/banner; 

• Community Safety Survey, next survey due 2015/16; 

• Joint Action Group funding, for small projects in specific locations across the 


• Section 12/13 orders to create no drinking zones to combat alcohol related 

anti social behaviour in the Borough; 

• Section 30 orders to create anti social behaviour dispersal areas; 

• Freedom Programme/Recovery Toolkit (12 weeks): Provides help and 

support to survivors of Domestic Abuse within the Borough; 

• Recognition and Recovery toolkit: provide help and support to children caught 

within Domestic Abuse situations, and is open to children across the 


• Citizenship students – This is an annual joint Police and Borough activity 

which uses peer mentors/representatives to approach young people about 

anti social behaviour, or emerging social problems; and, 

• Youth Engagement Scheme (YES project): this is a project delivered by the 

Fire and Rescue Service to support young people aged 14+ in the Borough 

who are causing anti social behaviour. 


13.20 The cost of the works to the Borough’s CCTV cameras is estimated at the current time 

to be in the region of £553,000. The costs of the remainder of the projects detailed in 

the ‘future provision’ section above are detailed in the table below: 

Page | 131 


Funding 

ID 

IDPF127 

IDPF128 

IDPF129 

IDPF130 

IDPF131 

IDPF132 

IDPF133 

IDPF134 

IDPF135 

Description 

Upgrading/replacement of existing 

cctv cameras in the Borough 

CCTV expansion scheme in 

Rowtown 

CCTV expansion scheme at 

Weybridge Industrial Estate 


Ottershaw 


Addlestone Moor/Woburn Hill 

roundabout 

CCTV expansion scheme at Thorpe 

Trading Estate 

Junior Citizen Personal Safety 

Workbooks 

MemoCam project 

Support for community intervention 

projects such as The Biz 

Estimated 

Cost 

Key 

Provider(s) 

£553,000 RBC 

£110,000 RBC 

£35,000 RBC 

£35,000 RBC 

£40,000 RBC 

£50,000 RBC 

£30,000 over 

5 years 

£7,500 over 5 

years 

£10,000 over 

5 years 

RBC 

RBC 

RBC 

IDPF136 Public information board/banner £370 RBC 

IDPF137 

Community Safety Survey, next 

survey due 2015/16 

£3,000 RBC 

IDPF138 

Joint Action Group funding, for small 

projects in specific locations across 

the Borough 

£20,000 per 

annum 

RBC 

IDPF139 

IDPF140 

Section 12/13 orders to create no 

drinking zones to combat alcohol 

related anti social behaviour 

Section 30 orders to create anti 

social behaviour dispersal areas 

£7,000 RBC 

£4,500 RBC 

IDPF141 

Freedom Programme/Recovery 

Toolkit 

£11,250 over 

5 years 

RBC 

IDPF142 

IDPF143 

IDPF144 

Recognition and Recovery toolkit 

Citizenship students 

Youth Engagement Scheme 

TOTAL COSTS 

£13,750 over 

5 years 

£6,000 over 5 

years 

£15,000 over 

5 years 

Approx 

£951,370 

(although this 

accounts for 

some of the 

schemes 

being 

delivered 

over a 5 year 

period only) 

RBC 

RBC 

RBC 

Page | 132 



13.21 The population growth predicted in the Borough over the plan period, in conjunction 

with central government funding cuts is considered to represent the biggest threat to 

police resources in the Borough. It is envisaged however that the Surrey Police 

Authority will carry out their own assessment of the how growth and spending cuts will 

impact on their existing resources and forward plan accordingly. 

Conclusion 


IDPR040 Population growth High Unknown 

IDPR041 Central Government funding cuts High Unknown 

13.22 Overall, whilst the additional development within the Borough over the plan period is 

likely to put further pressure on Police resources, no additional facilities are known to 

be proposed by the Police to support the predicted growth at this time. 

Fire and Rescue 


13.23 Surrey Fire and Rescue Services (SFRS) provide response services across Surrey 

through a network of 24 fire stations divided into three geographical areas. 

Runnymede, Spelthorne and Elmbridge are covered by the North Area Team. Within 

this area there are seven fire stations, two of which are located within the Borough; at 

Chertsey and Egham. 

Figure 24- location of fire stations across Surrey 

source: Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Project: Final Report 1B resource 

13.24 In 2006, new ‘Surrey Response Standards’ were introduced which prioritise the 

Service’s response to people instead of buildings; prompting a major step-change in 

the way the Service uses its resources. These standards are based upon the 

Page | 133 


percentage of the population receiving a fire engine response within 8 minutes and two 

fire engines within 12 minutes. 

13.25 In recent years there has been a significant reduction in firefighter posts across Surrey; 

in 2003 there were 712 full time posts, whilst at the time of writing this report this 

number had reduced to 635 full time posts. These changes have resulted in SFRS 

having the 3rd lowest number of operational staff per 10,000 population in England. 

Within the Borough itself, the number of fire engines has also been reduced by 

removing the 2nd vehicle from Chertsey Fire Station in 2005 39 . 


13.26 As noted elsewhere in this report, it is estimated that over the period 2011-2026, 

significant new residential units will be provided in the Borough. The location policies in 

the Local Plan; LP01-LP08 confirm where new development is expected in the Borough 

over the plan period. Development would largely be focussed in the Borough’s Urban 

Areas, although development will also take place at the former DERA site in Longcross. 

13.27 Strategic Policy 6 (SP06) which supports, promotes and encourages tourism, 

recreation and leisure provision within the Borough, and Strategic Policy 10 (SP10) 

which is concerned with development and flood risk are also considered to be relevant 

in this case as both flooding events and an increase in the number of tourists attracted 

to the Borough would no doubt impact on existing SFRS resources. 


13.28 The HM treasury Spending Review (October 2010) sets out the Government’s strategy 

for public finance until March 2015. The impact on the Fire and Rescue Authorities will 

be a 25% reduction in formula grant funding over the Spending Review period. To give 

Fire and Rescue Authorities time to make the necessary changes without affecting the 

quality and breadth of services to communities, the main reduction will be applied in 

2013/14 and 2014/15 40 . 

13.29 SFRS also report that they are affected by the financial situation of Surrey County 

Council. Surrey County Council’s current 4 year medium term financial plan has 

identified £4.2 million in revenue savings for Fire and Rescue between April 2011 and 

March 2015. 

13.30 SFRS acknowledges that there is a need to rationalise the number and locations of 

Surrey fire stations (such a rationalisation is planned in Elmbridge for example). The 

Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Project Phase 1 Final Report, June 2009 and the Surrey 

Fire and Rescue Authority Public Safety Plan 2011-2020 indicate however that the 

majority of any planned changes will take place in the south of the County due to the 

expected increase in population growth. In particular there is an ambition to build new 

stations in more appropriate locations in Surrey during the plan period. Aspirations are 

listed although these do not relate to Runnymede. In the north of Surrey (where 

Runnymede is located), SFRS consider that existing provision will be adequate to meet 

growth. 


13.31 Given that no new facilities are proposed in the Borough over the plan period, this 

section is not relevant in this instance. 

39 

Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority Public Safety Plan 2011-2020 

40 

Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority Public Safety Plan 2011-2020 

Page | 134 



13.32 SFRS state that the threat of terrorism and the effects of climate change are some of 

the factors which will contribute to the challenges that they face in the future. SFRS 

state that other risk drivers when planning future needs are not driven by population 

numbers, but instead by property types and levels of social exclusion 41 . It is envisaged 

however that SFRS will carry out their own assessment of the how these factors will 

impact on their existing resources (which serve the Borough) and forward plan 

accordingly. 

Conclusion 


IDPR042 Threat of terrorism Low High 

IDPR043 Effects of climate change High High 

IDPR044 

Property types proposed in new 

development 

Low 

Unknown 

IDPR045 Levels of social exclusion Low Low 

13.33 Overall even with the forecasted amount of new development within the Borough over 

the plan period, it is considered that the existing infrastructure is sufficient to absorb 

growth without additional provision. 

Ambulance 


13.34 Surrey is served by the South East Coast Ambulance (SECAmb) Service which 

provides services across the whole of the South East Coast region – Kent, Surrey and 

Sussex. There is one ambulance station within the Borough, on the A320-Guildford 

Road. This is known as Chertsey Ambulance Station. 

13.35 The SECAmb Service, along with all NHS Trusts, has to approve a 5-year Capital 

Investment Programme and a key element of this is ensuring that the estate is fit for 

purpose and functional. To assess this, an estates condition survey has been 

undertaken. This survey identifies “black spots” and investment priorities. 

13.36 The bulk of the estate consists of ambulance stations, 70% of which were constructed 

before 1974.The estate has been graded from A-D to indicate condition and 

performance. In Surrey, the majority of the estate is graded as ‘C’, ‘C/D’ or ‘D’. This 

translates to the following: 

• A = physical condition is as new, can be expected to perform adequately to its 

full normal life cycle and complies with statutory/mandatory requirements 

• B = physical condition is operationally safe, exhibits only minor deterioration 

but action may be needed in the current financial year to make functionally 

suitable or meet statutory requirements 

• C = physical condition will become in need of major repair or replacement 

within three years, functional stability is unsatisfactory, capital investment 

required within 3 years. 

• D = physical condition runs a serious risk of imminent breakdown, 

unacceptable in present condition. 

41 

Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Study, 2009 

Page | 135 


13.37 Chertsey Ambulance Station has been classified as grade D, being ‘at serious risk of 

breakdown’ 42 . 

13.38 In 2011/12, 76.8% of category A (immediately life threatening conditions) 999 calls 

received an emergency response within 8 minutes of the call being received. A vehicle 

able to transport the patient to hospital arrived within 19 minutes of these calls 98% of 

the time. Table 14 below shows the response time of SECAmb compared to 

ambulance services in other parts of the country for 2011/2012. 

Table 14-SECAmb response time compared with other parts of country 

Source: SECAmb website-national performance indicators 


13.39 As aforementioned in this report, it is estimated that over the period 2011-2026, 

significant new residential units will be provided in the Borough. The location policies in 

the Local Plan; LP01-LP08 confirm where new development is expected in the Borough 

over the plan period. Development would largely be focussed in the Borough’s Urban 

Areas, although development will also take place at the former DERA site in Longcross. 

13.40 As noted in the previous sub chapters, Strategic Policy 6 (SP06) which is concerned 

with supporting, promoting and encouraging tourism, recreation and leisure provision 

within the Borough, and Strategic Policy 10 (SP10) which is concerned with 

development and flood risk are also considered to be relevant in this case as both 

policies could have implications for emergency services resources. 

13.41 As Chertsey Ambulance Station is located in the Green Belt, SP01 would also be 

relevant for any redevelopment proposal at the site. This policy promotes strict 

protection of the Green Belt. 


13.42 The service provider has indicated that in Surrey, the provision of ambulance services 

will be consolidated in 4 major locations where depots will be built (over the 20 years 

period covered by the Surrey Capacity Project Phase 1 Final Report, June 2009). 

These are: 

• Chertsey; 

42 

Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Study, 2009 

Page | 136 


• Godalming; 

• Redhill; and, 

• Banstead. 

13.43 The exact location of the depots has yet to be decided and the areas of search extend 

as far as 5 miles around each of the specified locations. The Surrey Infrastructure 

Capacity Project Phase 1 Final Report, June 2009 indicates however that a rebuild of 

the existing ambulance station in Chertsey is proposed, on the same site as the 

existing. The proposed changes to facilities in Surrey are proposed to take place in 

2014/15 (it should be noted however that there is no extant permission at the Chertsey 

Ambulance Station site for its redevelopment at the time of writing this report). 


13.44 On 21st June 2007, the Department of Health announced that Ambulance Trusts would 

be eligible to apply for Foundation Trust (FT) status from 1st April 2009. SECAmb has 

applied for and achieved Foundation Trust status. This gives SECAmb more financial 

freedom and allows it to borrow funds as appropriate to support capital investments 43 . 

13.45 It is considered reasonable to assume therefore that the redevelopment of the Chertsey 

Ambulance site would be funded by the South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS 

Foundation Trust. 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF145 


Description 

Redevelopment of Chertsey 

Ambulance Station 

Estimated 

Cost 

Unknown 

Key 

Provider(s) 

South East 

Coast 

Ambulance 

Service 

NHS 

Foundation 

Trust 

13.46 The population growth predicted in the Borough over the plan period, in conjunction 

with climate change and the threat of terrorism are considered to represent the biggest 

threats to SECAmb resources. It is envisaged however that SECAmb will carry out their 

own assessment of the how these factors will impact on their existing resources (which 

serve the Borough) and forward plan accordingly. 

Conclusion 


IDPR046 Population growth High Low 

IDPR047 Climate change High High 

IDPR048 Threat of terrorism Low High 

13.47 Overall, whilst a redevelopment of the Chertsey ambulance site is proposed during the 

plan period, the cost of any redevelopment scheme granted permission is considered 

most likely to be met by SECAmb. With the site redeveloped to provide improved 

facilities, it is considered that additional provision will not be required during the plan 

period. 

43 

Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Project Phase 1 Final Report, June 2009/SECAmb website 

Page | 137 


Flooding and Flood Defences 


13.48 Fluvial flooding from the River Thames and its tributaries (the Chertsey Bourne, the 

Addlestone Bourne and River Wey), are the primary sources of flooding in Runnymede. 

The greatest flood risk posed to the Borough is from the River Thames, which flows 

along the eastern boundary of the Borough, with the main urban areas of Egham, 

Chertsey and Addlestone lying (at least in part) in areas of high flood risk. In addition, 

the Basingstoke Canal and Wey Navigation discharge into the River Wey which forms 

the southern boundary of the Borough. 

13.49 There is a long record of flooding from rivers in the Borough, and in particular from the 

River Thames. Major recorded flood events from the river occurred in 1898, 1947, 1968 

and 2003, although the 2003 event was less severe than earlier events, partly due to 

local drainage improvements and upstream flood control measures. A severe flood risk 

warning was issued for the area in the summer of 2007, but the river did not actually 

overtop its banks despite coming very close to doing so. The Environment Agency also 

holds records of fluvial flooding in Runnymede for the years 1929, 1954, 1988 and 

1990. 

13.50 The Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan (2009) states that Runnymede is a 

Borough with over 5000 properties at risk in a 1% annual probability river flood. This 

makes the Borough one of the highest risk areas in the Lower Thames region. Indeed, 

Runnymede has been identified as one of the top 10 local authority areas for flood risk 

in England. There are no formal flood defences in the Borough, a formal defence being 

classified as a structure that is specifically built for the purposes of flood defence. 

Informal flood defences include structures that may act to contain flood water but were 

not originally constructed for that purpose, for example the M3 and M25 motorway and 

railway lines in the Borough. 

13.51 There are areas of Surrey which have been broadly assessed as having “extensive” 

areas in Flood Zone 3, and without significant flood infrastructure, These areas are 

considered to not benefit from the minimum standard of protection. Within the Borough, 

Chertsey, Byfleet and Staines upon Thames are identified as three of these areas 

(Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Project Phase 1 Final Report, June 2009). 

13.52 As well as fluvial flooding there are other types of flooding which put areas of the 

Borough at risk, for example, ground water and surface water flooding, surcharging of 

sewers and breaching of reservoirs or canals. These are the responsibility of the Local 

Authority. Whilst there are reported incidences of both ground water and surface water 

flooding in the Borough, there is no known history of canal or reservoir breaches in 

Runnymede. The table below provides a summary of flood risks in Runnymede and 

areas which have either a history of flooding or which are potentially at risk (taken from 

Runnymede Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, May 2009). 

Page | 138 


Table 15 - Summary of flood risks in Runnymede 

Source of 

flooding 

Fluvial 

Fluvial 

Pathway Area at Risk/Receptor Risk 

Out of bank flow from the 

Thames, Wey, Addlestone 

Bourne and Chertsey 

Bourne 

Backing up of water in the 

Chertsey Bourne and 

other tributaries from high 

levels in the Thames 

Out of bank flow from 

Chertsey Bourne 

Backing up of water in the 

Chertsey Bourne from 

Egham, Egham Hythe, 

Chertsey and Addlestone 

within the floodplain of the 

Lower Thames and 


Thorpe and Thorpe Green 

in the floodplain of the 


high levels in the Thames 

Groundwater Rising groundwater levels Low lying areas in the 

Thames floodplain and in 

areas of alluvial sands and 

gravels 

Surface 

Water 


Sewer 

capacity 

Impounded 

waters 

Surcharging of drains or 

culverted watercourses 

Surcharging of sewers 

Breach of raised canal or 

cascade on reservoir 

Areas of Egham and 

Woodham that have 

experienced previous 

surface runoff flooding 

Areas within low lying 

floodplain with naturally wet 

soils 

Potential for sewer capacity 

problems in Egham and 

Chertsey 

Residual risk downstream 

of Virginia Water lake in 

Virginia Water and 

Chertsey 

Residual risk in Woodham 

from the Basingstoke Canal 

Very high 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Low 

Negligible 

Tidal None None in Runnymede None 

Source: Runnymede Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), May 2009 

13.53 The location policies in the Local Plan; LP01-LP08, are considered to be most relevant 

in this case. These policies confirm where new development is expected in the 

Borough over the plan period. The Council’s preferred approach is that in the 

Borough’s Urban Areas, development would be focussed in areas with the lowest risk 

of flooding. Development will also take place at the former DERA site in Longcross 

which is in the Green Belt but in flood zone 1. 

13.54 Strategic policy 10 (SP10) is also considered to be materially relevant as it is 

concerned with development and flood risk. This policy recognises the severity of the 

flooding risk and lack of formal flood defences within the Borough. 


13.55 The Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy (LTFRMS) which went out to 

public consultation in 2009, has the key objective of identifying sustainable solutions to 

reduce flood risk to people and property. This strategy presents a long term programme 

Page | 139 


of works within the context of a 100 year strategic plan. The LTFRMS will reduce the 

risk of river flooding to 15,000 properties with a one per cent annual (1 in 100 year) 

chance of flooding from Datchet to Teddington. Measures proposed in the strategy 

include: 

• building three flood diversion channels (Channel 1 would run from Datchet to 

Wraysbury; Channel 2 from Egham to Chertsey and Channel 3 from Chertsey 

to Shepperton) 

• widening or deepening of the DesBorough Cut 

• capacity increases to Sunbury, Molesey, and Teddington weirs 

• Individual property protection measures for improving resistance against 

flooding for smaller groups of properties 

• improving mapping information for emergency evacuation plans 

13.56 Specifically, within Chertsey, both local and combined flood impacts from the Chertsey 

Bourne and the River Thames are known to be significant. There are numerous 

tributaries and minor drainage channels in the area and many would receive some 

reduction in flood risk due to the proposed diversion channels, which would reduce 

flood levels generally. The Chertsey Bourne system, incorporating the Mead Lake Ditch 

and Moat, has been assessed as receiving significant benefits from diversion Channel 

2. A previous study into the flooding impacts of the Chertsey Bourne was included into 

the wider Lower Thames Strategy. 

13.57 In regard to the community based measures for improving resistance against flooding 

for smaller groups of properties, within the Borough, the Environment Agency have 

assessed a number of properties in Timsway, Coopers Close and Staines Lane (all in 

Staines). Work was carried out to identified properties in 2012 following survey reports 

carried out by the Environment Agency for the residents. 

13.58 Given the difficulties with securing the funding for the project however (for more 

information on this please see the ‘costs and funding sources’ section below), works 

will be delivered through separate projects. According to the Environment Agency, 

works are unlikely to start in 2017 as originally stated. During the Local Plan period, it is 

only the individual property protection works proposed under the LTFRMS which will be 

carried out in Runnymede. The civil works and cut works are planned to take place 

after 2026. 

13.59 The River Wey Flood Risk Management Strategy which was previously proposed has 

now largely been abandoned although the Environment Agency advise that they are 

continuing their work on the refurbishment of the weirs along the route. 


13.60 The Whole Life Cost (excluding inflation) of the LTFRMS is £538m including a 

contingency of £101m. As a consequence of the Government’s 2010 Comprehensive 

Spending Review however, Defra has instructed the Environment Agency to reduce 

their capital expenditure by 27% by 2014. This has implications on the size of their 

capital programme and their proposed schemes. In June 2011, Defra introduced a new 

policy of Partnership Funding. This scheme enables a greater number of schemes to 

receive at least some capital funding, with the remaining amount being made up from 

external contributions. Fewer schemes will however receive 100% Defra Grant in Aid 

(GiA) funding. 

13.61 When the Environment Agency undertook the public consultation for the LTFRMS in 

2009, the scheme was eligible for 100% Defra funding, based on the strength of the 

business case. The change in policy means that the delivery of the LTS will now 

Page | 140 


involve a greater partnership between the respective planning authorities and the 

Environment Agency. Preliminary calculations show that the preferred option, arising 

from the LTFRMS, will only receive about half of the Defra GiA funding required. 

Consequently the remainder will need to come from various forms of external 

contributions. This is a significant amount, currently calculated as at least £114m. 

13.62 The cost of the refurbishment of the weirs along the route of the River Wey Flood Risk 

Management Strategy and the sources of funding are unknown at this time. 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF146 

IDPF147 


Description 

Lower Thames Flood Risk 

Management Strategy 

Refurbishment of the weirs along the 

River Wey 

Estimated 

Cost 

£538million 

Unknown 

Key 

Provider(s) 

Environment 

Agency, 

Defra, Local 

Authorities 

Environment 

Agency 

13.63 The main risk in this case is considered to be climate change which can lead to 

extreme weather conditions. Heavy and prolonged rainfall in particular is considered to 

be a risk to residents and businesses in the Borough. Mitigation will be required in the 

future (in particular through the Lower Thames Strategy) to minimise the risk of flooding 

in the Borough as far as possible. The implementation of the LTFRMS will however be 

slow and costly. Given that the bulk of the works proposed will not come forward until 

after the plan period, during the plan period, the probability of some form of flooding 

occurring in the Borough is considered to be high. The severity of such an event also 

has the potential to be high. 

Conclusion 


IDPR049 Flooding event in the Borough High 

Ranges 

depending 

on scale 

of 

floodingcould 

be 

high 

IDPR050 Climate change High High 

13.64 Flood risk in the Borough will be a significant issue over the Local Plan period. The 

costs of the infrastructure proposed to mitigate against flood risk in the Borough under 

the LTFRMS are significant. Given the change in Defra policy, funding will be required 

from the affected Councils if the works are to progress and flood risk is to be reduced. 

The full effects of the LTFRMS will not be felt however until after the plan period given 

that the majority of the planned works are not proposed until beyond 2026. 

Page | 141 


Chapter 14. Community Services and Facilities 

Introduction 

14.1 This chapter details the community services and facilities in the Borough, specifically 

exploring the Borough’s: 

• shopping facilities 

• libraries 

• services for older people (voluntary services) 

• youth centres 

• places of worship 

• cemeteries and crematoriums 

14.2 In each sub chapter, the existing provision will be looked at, as well as the expected 

future provision over the plan period. Where new infrastructure is forecasted over the 

plan period, the provider and sources of funding will be stated (where known). 

Shopping Facilities 


14.3 There are shopping centres in Addlestone, Chertsey, Egham and Virginia Water and 

other shopping parades and more isolated shops at various locations in the Borough. 

14.4 The Runnymede Retail Study (2009) was the last retail study that was carried out in the 

Borough. As part of the study, household survey data was used to establish the 

existing pattern of shopping behaviour for both food and non-food goods amongst 

Runnymede residents. This information was also used to assist in identifying the extent 

of the catchment of each of the four main centres, and of specific stores (particularly 

supermarkets) in the Borough. 

14.5 The Runnymede Retail Study (2009) also assessed the current vitality and viability of 

the main centres in the Borough, using the indicators of vitality and viability outlined in 

PPS6 “Planning for Town Centres” (please note that PPS6 has now been replaced by 

the NPPF). The following conclusions were drawn: 

Addlestone: 

• Was noted to be a small town which is a service and convenience goods 

centre. Dominated by a large number of service units and large amount of 

convenience goods floorspace. The Tesco Extra superstore was considered 

the main draw to the centre and which supports the towns’ vitality by creating 

general shopper presence from which other retailers can benefit. It was 

concluded however that the rest of the town centre was not (in 2009) fully 

benefiting from the presence of this major retailer; 

• The comparison goods retail offer in Addlestone was noted to be limited. The 

majority of this retail activity was found to be lost to larger retail centres such 

as Staines and Woking; 

• The local perception of the centre was found to be poor with a limited quality 

and quantity of shops. The urban fabric and the town centre environment was 

also found to be dated in places and in need of investment. The wide 

pavements in the main retailing area were however found to be a positive 

attribute, assisting in creating a generally pleasant shopping environment. 

Page | 142 


Chertsey: 

Egham: 

Virginia Water: 

• Found to be predominantly a service and convenience goods centre. 

Specifically, the presence of a number of banks in a town the size of Chertsey 

was considered to be indicative of the dominance of the service sector. The 

main driver of footfall within the town was found however to be the 

Sainsbury’s Supermarket; 

• The buildings surrounding The Crown Hotel and along London Street were 

considered to be the best examples of architecture within the centre. These 

buildings were considered to form an area of genuine environmental quality. 

Furthermore, it was considered that whilst the majority of the conservation 

area had the potential to be very attractive, the urban fabric was tired and in 

need of investment; 

• Chertsey’s town centre was found to be poorly regarded by the local retailing 

community. The greatest problem was found to be the dislocation between 

the main anchor retailer – Sainsbury’s – and the main retailing area. The 

Sainsbury Centre (which links the Sainsburys store to Guildford Street) was 

considered to be dated and provide no incentive for Sainsbury’s shoppers to 

venture beyond the store into the rest of the town. As such it was considered 

that Chertsey Town Centre does not benefit fully from the presence of 

Sainsburys. The report concluded that the town centre was in danger of 

regressing further unless there was new investment for revitalisation. 

• Principal role of town was found to be to provide services and convenience 

goods to those within the local catchment area; 

• Centre was noted to be well located in relation to the road network, and easily 

accessible, by both train and bus. In 2009 there was found to be a strong 

national multiple retailer presence within the centre and a vacancy rate below 

the national average; 

• The car parking, access by public transport, restaurants/cafes/takeaways, 

moving around the centre on foot and cleanliness were also noted to be 

strengths of the town; 

• Overall, the centre’s retail offer was found to be robust and serving its 

purpose in that it provided for the service and convenience goods needs of its 

catchment. It was considered however that the centre could benefit from 

some investment to improve the streetscape and the retail units. It was felt 

that the town would also benefit from the arrival of Waitrose which would 

provide another major anchor store for the town, creating added interest and 

footfall from which other retailers should benefit. 

• A very small centre consisting of only 35 retail units. The role of the centre 

was considered to be to provide food top-up shopping and services to the 

local residents within a small catchment area. 

• Both Station Approach and Station Parade (the key shopping parades) were 

noted to be set away from the busy Christchurch Road. Units along Station 

Approach in particular were noted to be of high aesthetic quality, creating a 

pleasant, generally quiet and relaxed shopping environment. 

• The centre was found to be well related to the local and regional road 

network and the town’s train station was considered to provide the residents 

Page | 143 


with sufficient public transport provision, although bus services could be 

improved. 

• In 2009, there was a low vacancy rate in the centre. 

14.6 Overall, whilst each of the three main towns in the Borough (Egham, Chertsey and 

Addlestone) were considered to provide for residents’ main food shopping needs, it 

was found that none of the towns provided choice. It was also concluded that none of 

the major towns were significant comparison goods shopping destinations. Instead, 

considerable expenditure on these goods was lost to other centres, mostly to Staines 

and Woking. Addlestone was found to buck the trend to a degree by providing a limited 

offer in some categories, notably electrical goods and china, glass and utensils. Overall 

however, the role of the Borough’s town centres was concluded to be to provide 

convenience goods shopping and a range of services. 

14.7 It was also concluded that none of the centres in the Borough are ever likely to 

compete with the comparison goods offer available in other nearby centres. As such, 

the recommendation was that existing centres should build on their existing strengths: 

convenience goods, retailing and services; presented in an easily accessible, pleasant 

environment. In addition however it was considered that there is scope in Addlestone 

and Chertsey to achieve greater synergy between the existing food stores and the rest 

of their respective town centres. 

14.8 It is also considered particularly noteworthy to mention that the Runnymede Retail 

Study (2009) also highlighted the particular influence of the Tesco Store in Addlestone 

on the Borough as a whole. 

14.9 Even though the retail study was carried out over 3 years ago, it is considered that the 

conclusions noted in the above paragraphs still apply to the Borough’s main centres 

today. 




in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the DERA site in Longcross. LP03, LP04, LP06 

and LP07 are considered to be of particular relevance as they focus on development in 

the Boroughs 4 main centres (Addlestone, Egham/Englefield Green, Chertsey and 

Virginia Water). LP08 outlines the vision for the former DERA site. 

14.11 When considering these policies in more detail, LP03 promotes Addlestone as an area 

for ‘new town centre development’, envisaging this location as taking ‘the majority of 

new growth over the early period of this plan’. A mixed use town centre development is 

envisaged on the vacant site adjacent to the existing Council Offices which could act as 

a catalyst for future regeneration opportunities in the town. 

14.12 LP04 is concerned with development in the Egham/Englefield Green Area. Whilst 

making specific reference to Royal Holloway University of London, this policy 

encourages development whilst ensuring that future proposals coming forward would 

respect the existing form and function of the centre. 

14.13 LP06 is concerned with development in Chertsey Urban Area and seeks to protect its 

unique status in the Borough by controlling new development so that it, ‘is appropriate 

in scale, form and appearance to the existing historic character of the town centre and 

appearance of Chertsey’. 

14.14 LP07 is concerned with development in Virginia Water Urban Area. It promotes its 

continued protection as a high quality environment supported by its current mix of uses 

found in the existing village centre. Its enhancement through the introduction of a 

Page | 144 


foodstore at the end of Station Parade and the redevelopment of the Bourne Car Park 

is also envisaged. 

14.15 Strategic Policy 05 (Design) is also considered to be relevant for any new retail 

schemes as well as SP09 which promotes sustainable transport in the Borough. 


14.16 The Runnymede Retail Study (2009) found that even before the current economic 

difficulties, recent trends in expenditure growth were not expected to continue as a 

result of the combination of high levels of consumer debt, an already low savings ratio 

and a weakening housing market. Economic forecasts suggest that comparison goods 

expenditure growth will be about 4% per annum over the next 5-10 years. Whilst the 

current recession may depress this growth rate in the short term, 4% growth is roughly 

in line with the long term trend (3.9% since 1969). 

14.17 As part of the Runnymede Retail Study (2009), a broad assessment of future 

floorspace need in Runnymede was also carried out. It was found however that as is 

often the case with smaller centres, maintaining and enhancing their vitality and viability 

is more than a matter of simply providing more floorspace. The quality of the existing 

and required space is of paramount importance as is the degree to which the key 

attractors support the rest of the town centre. 

14.18 The following key recommendations were made as part of the Runnymede Retail Study 

(2009): 

• The objective of policy should be to maintain and enhance the vitality and 

viability of the town centres, not necessarily to provide every kind of shopping 

in every centre. In particular, it was considered most realistic to accept the 

role of the centres in the Borough as providers of convenience goods 

shopping and services and to seek to derive the maximum benefit from these 

uses for the rest of the town centre. 

• Centres need to be managed in such a way to ensure that the main drivers of 

footfall are properly integrated into the centre so that they support the rest of 

the retail and service offer. 

• Looking further ahead, it was recommended in the retail study that another 

assessment of Virginia Water’s role, in terms of its retail offering, health and 

performance should be undertaken after significant residential development 

has taken place on the nearby DERA site. 

14.19 When considering specific additional retail provision which is likely to come forward in 

the Borough over the plan period, the most noteworthy retail scheme which has been 

permitted in recent years is at Arndale Way, Church Road in Egham where permission 

was granted in 2009 under RU.09/0033 for the erection of a 3 storey building 

comprising of a Class A1 foodstore on the ground floor (with associated back of house 

facilities and separate service delivery access), together with an 80 bed hotel on the 

first and second floors; all served by a ramped basement car park; creation of a new 

pedestrian link to the High Street with Public Square and relocation of bus stops onto 

Church Road. The supermarket is known to be Waitrose and the hotel, a Travelodge. 

Works have recently commenced, with a completion being aimed for in Spring 2014. 

The foodstore will have a floor area of some 2926sqm. 

14.20 In addition, a planning application has been submitted under RU.12/0725 at Hannover 

House, Station Parade, Virginia Water for a change of use and extension to the existing 

building to provide an A1 foodstore with a floor area of 836sqm (this figure excludes the 

ancillary retail operational accommodation at first and second floors). This application 

remains undetermined at the time of writing this report. 

Page | 145 


14.21 The Bourne Car Park in Virginia Water is a Council owned site which is also currently 

being advertised for disposal. Whilst this site is being disposed of for development 

purposes, it is not yet known what the future use of the site may be. 

14.22 The vacant site adjacent to the Council Offices in Addlestone is also earmarked for a 

mixed use development which is likely to include further retail floorspace. It is 

envisaged that the redevelopment of this site will take place over the plan period. 


14.23 The cost of the Class A1 food store schemes at Arndale Way Car Park in Egham and 

Hannover House in Virginia Water are not known although the costs of these 

redevelopment schemes would be met by the developers in question. 

14.24 The costs of any developments which come forward on the Bourne Car Park site or on 

the site adjacent to the Council offices in Addlestone are not known at this time. 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF148 

IDPF149 

IDPF150 


Description 

Waitrose supermarket and Travel 

Lodge scheme at the Arndale car 

park, in Egham 

A1 food store at Hannover House, 

Station Parade, Virginia Water (if 

approved) 

Redevelopment of site adjacent the 

council offices in Addlestone (mixed 

use scheme) 

Estimated 

Cost 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Key 

Provider(s) 

Liberty 

Properties 

Reef Estates 

Limited 

RBC/Bouygues 

Development 

14.25 The main risk to both the existing shopping facilities in the Borough, and future 

provision coming forward is considered to be the economic downturn. This could 

potentially result in high vacancy levels in existing centres, and prevent further retail 

opportunities coming forward. This would have an impact on the vitality and viability of 

town centres especially if class A1 uses continue to be lost. This is considered to be a 

distinct possibility in the short term although given the cyclical nature of economic 

markets, the long term view is considered to be more positive providing that existing 

Class A1 uses in town centres continue to be protected. 

Conclusion 


IDPR051 Economic downturn High Medium 

14.26 The Local Plan contains policies which seek to continue to protect and enhance the 

role of local shopping centres because of their importance to local areas in achieving 

sustainable communities. Whilst the existing provision of facilities is considered to be 

adequate, the redevelopment of the former DERA site (with 1500 dwellings proposed) 

is likely to put further pressure on the existing centres in the Borough, in particular on 

Virginia Water. As detailed in the Runnymede Retail Study carried out in the Borough in 

2009, an assessment of the impact of the DERA development on local shopping 

facilities may need to be undertaken. 

14.27 It is desirable to ensure that expenditure on food and non food goods is retained in the 

Borough wherever possible. The Waitrose proposal in Egham and the new foodstore in 

Virginia Water (if approved) offer further opportunities to achieve this. 

14.28 Improvements and enhancements to both the permeability and connectivity, and the 

retail offering in existing centres over the plan period would help ensure their continued 

Page | 146 


Libraries 

vitality and viability and improve their competitiveness with other shopping facilities and 

centres outside the Borough. 

14.29 Under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, Surrey County Council has a 

statutory duty to provide “a comprehensive and efficient library service” for all persons 

desiring to make use of it, provided they live, or work, or are in full-time education in the 

Council’s area 44 . 

14.30 The CILIP (Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) states 45 that a 

good library service contributes to: 


• A positive future for children and young people 

• A fulfilling life for older people 

• Strong safe and sustainable communities 

• Promotion of local identity and community pride 

• Learning skills and workforce development 

• Health improvements and well-being 

• Equality, community cohesion and social justice 

• Economic regeneration 

14.31 In Runnymede, library services are managed through SCC. There are 5 libraries within 

the Borough in Addlestone, Chertsey, Egham, New Haw and Virginia Water. These are 

part of a larger network of 52 branch libraries providing a comprehensive service to 

residents within Surrey. 

14.32 According to Public Library Users Surveys (PLUS) surveys in 2009, the highest 

proportion of customers across Surrey with disabilities is at Virginia Water library 46 . The 

same survey shows that an average of 5% of respondents at the libraries across 

Surrey surveyed had a visual impairment. The highest proportion was at Virginia Water 

(7% of respondents). Borrower data also shows that adults aged 65 and over represent 

19% of borrowers at Surrey libraries. New Haw has one of the highest proportions of 

customers aged 65 and over. 

14.33 The library service continues to provide access to education, literacy and lifelong 

learning which are all national and local priorities. The provision offered in libraries is 

growing and continues to evolve to meet the changing needs of customers. 

Increasingly, libraries are required to increase their provision by local councils and the 

government and take on new responsibilities, putting a strain on resources and 

budgets. 

14.34 The library operation manager for SCC has reported that lending areas in all five 

libraries in Runnymede are in an attractive condition. Addlestone library was refitted 

when it co-located into the Council Offices in 2008. Egham library has benefitted from a 

full refurbishment and Virginia Water, New Haw and Chertsey have been improved by 

the joint efforts of SCC and Friends groups who are voluntary supporters of these 

libraries. 

44 

PVR: Surrey Library Service-Community Partnered Libraries cabinet report 24july 2012 (Item 6) pg 6 

45 

ibid 

46 

PVR: Surrey Library Service-Community Partnered Libraries cabinet report 24july 2012 (Item 6) 

Page | 147 


14.35 Changes in the nature of library use mean that SCC are not looking to enlarge any of 

the libraries in Runnymede, but feel there will be pressures on service due to 

increasing population and demographic changes 47 . 

14.36 Significant growth areas in Surrey libraries are within all aspects of virtual services 

including on-line resources, e-books and e-audio books and library websites. Physical 

visits to libraries continue to fall across the UK and in Surrey. Total virtual visits to the 

library service in Surrey increased from 2,523,690 in 09/10 to 3,161,022 in 10/11. 

Table 16-Use figures for the 5 static libraries in Runnymede, (based on 2010-11 figures) 

Library Book Issues Audio – Visual Issues Total items issued 

per annum 

Addlestone 

51,814 

2,458 

54,272 

Chertsey 

Egham 

46,850 2,463 

89,588 4,890 

49,313 

94,478 

New Haw 37,725 1,837 39,562 

Virginia Water 

17,201 740 

17,941 

14.37 In 2010/2011, SCC carried out extensive consultation through the Public Value Review 

of Libraries (PVR), the aim of which was to deliver improved outcomes and value for 

money. The review has instigated a number of changes to provision. Specifically, on 

30th September 2010, the mobile library service ceased operation across Surrey due to 

high levels of cost and low levels of use. The aim is to transfer current members to their 

personalised choice of alternative service. Following extensive consultation with 

registered mobile library members SCC are of the opinion that "Library Direct", a new 

personalised service replacing the mobiles, and the residential homes service will be a 

strong growth area, with pressure increasing from an ageing population. 




in the Borough’s Urban Areas and at the DERA site in Longcross. Growth over the plan 

period is likely to increase demand for library services in the Borough. 

14.39 In particular, development of the former DERA site (which would create 1500 new 

homes) is likely to put an increased pressure on library services in Virginia Water. The 

Council will need to consult with SCC to ensure that the needs of both new and existing 

residents continue to be met as growth in the Borough occurs. 


14.40 Following the PVR of the Surrey Library Service, SCC plans to keep all of the libraries 

open in Runnymede. Surrey’s long term vision will mean however that there are a 

number of changes in the provision of the service in the Borough including the PVR 

recommendation that New Haw and Virginia Water libraries become community 

managed services. 

47 

Information provided by Surrey County Council 2012 

Page | 148 


14.41 A research paper produced in 2011 by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council 

(MLAC) identifies a number of potential benefits of community run libraries: 

• Local Authorities – reducing costs, achieving economic and policy objectives 

around employment, deprivation and community engagement, as well as 

social benefits. 

• Communities – the opportunity for consumers to be included as participants 

and have influence over their service provision, and to respond to placebased 

needs through co-location, asset transfer and income generation. 

• Users – continued access, and in some cases increased or improved access 

to library services when library buildings would otherwise have closed. They 

meet the needs of people who want access to information, books and other 

media, including the internet and the civic space for study, learning, reading 

or simply meeting others. 

14.42 Surrey’s PVR report made it clear that continued support through stock and IT 

provision, as well as training and other support will be offered to libraries such as New 

Haw and Virginia Water. To ensure standards and service, key expectations would be 

clearly identified to potential partners; however a flexible approach would be adopted to 

ensure that community partnerships could be tailored to the local community 48 . 

14.43 Addlestone and Egham libraries have self service technology which will also go into 

New Haw and Virginia Water to support the community partnerships. 

14.44 Libraries are increasingly being asked to take on more activities on behalf of councils 

and government (e.g. concessionary bus passes), putting additional pressure on a 

strained provider. The range of services offered in libraries has increased significantly 

with libraries playing a key role in helping people to learn and improve IT skills and get 

on line as government services switch over to online only services. Children's and 

cultural activities in libraries, reading schemes, author talks, reading groups are always 

oversubscribed and are likely to need expansion when development occurs over the 

plan period. 

14.45 Specific services which will be relevant over the plan period are summarised as follows: 

14.46 Library Direct: This service provides means for people who cannot get to a library 

themselves to have library provision. It includes at present housebound book services, 

housebound e-book delivery services, the RNIB book service for blind people, services 

to residential homes and sheltered housing. It is expanding into provision for young 

carers and young people with disabilities. It includes dial a ride provision for access to a 

library for people without a bus pass who meet the need criteria. 

14.47 The over 50s population (who are the main users of this service) is set to rise over the 

plan period. As such it is forecast that the usage of the Library Direct service and the 

residential homes service (which replaced the mobile library service), is likely to 

increase over the plan period. 

14.48 IT provision and assistive technology in Runnymede libraries: Libraries will need 

to continue their current key role in providing access to IT and IT skills for communities 

in Runnymede. Given that education is increasingly using IT for all forms of learning, 

that there is an ageing population who will consistently need IT help, and that reading 

formats are becoming increasingly e-based, it is expected that demands on library IT 

will increase across the board over the plan period. 

14.49 Specific changes by 2026 are expected to include: 

48 

PVR: Surrey Library Service-Community Partnered Libraries Cabinet Report 24 July 2012 Pg 3 

Page | 149 


• Increased IT costs, in infrastructure, hardware, licences, wi-fi, technical 

support and access to IT systems given the predicted increase in the overall 

population over the plan period and the push to use IT to access services. 

• Increased need for assistive technology, hardware (mobility assistance, 

physical impairment equipment, software- e.g. screen readers, magnification 

etc) given that the population is aging. 

• Rise of e-books and e-learning and increase in e-use by a generation who 

have grown up with it. Balance of library stocks and resources will shift to e- 

resources and e-books. Costs will increase because e-books and e- 

resources are more expensive than paper because of the licensing 

arrangements. 60% of stocks will be e-stocks which are 20% more expensive 

than paper. 

14.50 An additional branch library may be required to support the DERA development. 


14.51 Proposals to change the nature of the service delivery over the plan period have an 

emphasis on IT provision and electronic resources. This will not require the physical 

expansion of the existing libraries in the Borough. Instead improvements will be 

required to improve the quality and range of service, updating the current provision and 

reflecting the changing needs of the community. 

14.52 The main funding source for such changes for such changes over the plan period is 

considered to come from SCC. In addition however, community partnership libraries 

are also likely to rely on local fundraising and sponsorship. As with all public services, 

libraries in Surrey are facing budget cuts to meet the reduced level of revenue available 

from central Government. The impact of this is reflected in the position set out in the 

recommendations of the PVR review. 

14.53 Funding for specific projects is as follows: 

14.54 Library Direct: SCC estimates that the cost of this service over the plan period will be 

in the region of £333,765. The funding that SCC is able to contribute to this service 

over the same period is £216,690. This leaves a gap in funding of £117,075. 

14.55 IT provision and assistive technology in Runnymede libraries: SCC has confirmed 

that the cost of the IT project over the plan period would be £2,160,000. The funding 

that will be provided by SCC over this same period will be £1,635,000. This leaves a 

funding gap therefore of £525,000. 

14.56 Additional branch library at the DERA site: SCC has advised that if a new housing 

development generates a new community library, then for electrics, licencing, IT 

equipment, self service kiosks, printers etc, an additional £30,000 per annum would be 

required to support the library. 

Funding 

ID 

Description 

Estimated 

Cost 

Key 

Provider(s) 

IDPF151 Continuation of Library Direct service £333,765 SCC 

IDPF152 

IDPF153 

Improvement of IT provision and 

assistive technology in Runnymede 

libraries 

Possible provision of an additional 

library to support the development at 


£2,160,000 SCC 

£30,000 

per annum 

SCC 

Page | 150 



14.57 The main risk to this type of infrastructure designation is the success of the Community 

Partnered Libraries in maintaining standards and meeting the needs of the community. 

Such libraries rely heavily on volunteers and or fund raising for a paid member of staff. 

As a result there may be a risk of a reduction of service in the longer term. SCC has 

reported that both New Haw and Virginia Water libraries have suitable steering groups, 

and volunteers have come forward to run them. New Haw library became a Community 

Partnered library on 1st October 2012. Virginia Water will become a community 

partnered library on 12th January 2013. 

14.58 In particular, there are potential negative impacts of Community Partnered Libraries, as 

less direct contact with staff members and more reliance on a self service kiosk could 

alienate those residents who are disabled or elderly. This lack of face-face service 

could act as a barrier to the service meeting the needs of the Borough’s residents. The 

risk of a reduction in service in the longer term could have a significant impact on 

residents who would be less likely to access alternative library services, in particular 

the elderly or disabled. New Haw (Community Partnered Library) residents could be 

most affected due to being one of the libraries in Surrey with the highest proportion of 

people aged 65 and over. It is also reported 49 that the proportion of people who may 

also have difficulties with self-service is likely to be higher in areas of greater 

deprivation, where levels of unemployment are higher, and qualifications lower. 

Conclusion 


IDPR052 

Community partnered libraries failing to 

maintain standards and the needs of 

the community 

14.59 The County Council are reviewing service provision across the County. In Runnymede 

however, at the current time all existing libraries are proposed to remain open, with 

New Haw and Virginia Water becoming community run to maintain the existing service. 

14.60 The library service continues to reinvent itself to meet the needs of the community, 

providing free and universal access to education, literacy, and lifelong learning. They 

increasingly perform a valuable role as community hubs which link in with the strategy 

of community partnered libraries. 

Services for Older People (Voluntary Services) 


14.61 RBC provides a number of discretionary community services to the residents. These 

services are mainly designed and aimed at helping older people to maintain their 

independence in a variety of ways. This includes assisting them to remain in their 

homes, to enable them to actively participate in their community, and to have the 

opportunity to meet other people, all whilst receiving support in accessing any services 

they might require. 

14.62 Due to advances in health and living conditions, there are now more people over state 

pension age in the UK than children. By 2050, a 65 – year old man in Britain can 

expect to live to 91, In 1950, his life expectancy was 76 50 . Chapter 8, Health, section 

Private Healthcare, Nursing and Residential Care provides projections and current 

figures for this age group. 

Low 

Low 

49 

PVR: Surrey Library Service-Community Partnered Libraries cabinet report 24july 2012 (Item 6) 

50 

Source: http://www.local.gov.uk/ageing-well 

Page | 151 


14.63 RBC has been responding to the issues presented by an ageing population and has 

reconsidered and adapted the delivery of services. This falls in line with current national 

and County policies and initiatives and the previous government’s drive for integration, 

better choice and the need for modernisation. 

14.64 Nationally, in March 2012, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) 

commissioned an Ageing Well Programme to support Local Authorities in their 

preparation for an aging society. SCC is developing ‘The Ageing Well Strategy’ which 

will form part of a Surrey-wide Health and Wellbeing Strategy and which will focus on 

county priorities for achieving healthier communities. As part of the preparation of the 

strategy, consultation events will be held with local authorities, relevant organisations 

and those people affected. 

14.65 RBC is continuing to review its spending across a range of services, as a result of 

tightening budgets. The Council is however endeavouring to meet the challenges of 

balancing budgets in the short-term, whilst taking steps to prepare for demographic 

change and respond to new policies in the medium to longer term. Current services 

provided by the Community Services team are detailed below. These services provide 

not only for older residents but also for those of any age with a disability. 

14.66 Centres for older people: RBC operates three social centres for older people around 

the Borough. These provide support and an opportunity to meet people and socialise. 

The Ageing Well Programme emphasises the significance of such provision to give 

people who may be isolated or lonely an opportunity to meet other people. The benefit 

of these centres is therefore not only to relieve a good degree of human suffering but 

also to reduce some of the demands on the health and social care services within the 

Borough 51 . 

14.67 The three centres in the Borough are: 

• The Eileen Tozer Day Centre, Addlestone 

• Manor Farm Day Centre, Egham 

• Woodham & New Haw Day Centre, New Haw 

14.68 Hot meals are served Monday – Friday at mid-day and tea and cakes are served 

throughout the day. Transport is provided to all centres for those with mobility 

difficulties. 

14.69 A number of activities and services are offered including the opportunity to: 

• get active and take classes in Salsa dancing, Tai Chi or keep fit participate in 

games afternoons- whist, bingo and quizzes or indoor bowls 

• Refresh skills or learn new skills with computer and mobile phone training 

sessions for beginners 

• Make appointments with a hairdresser, chiropodist or Holistic therapies 

• Shop – groceries, wool, small gifts and greeting cards 

• Enjoy a trip to the coast on day excursions and visit some of the beauty spots 

across the British Isles with organised holidays 

• A Chaperone Service is also offered to accompany people to their chosen 

centre and introduce them to the manager. 

14.70 All services are carefully selected by RBC and are very much tailored to the changing 

needs of people at retirement age. Centres for older people across Surrey have seen a 

51 

(Source http://www.local.gov.uk/ageing-well) 

Page | 152 


decline in the number of people using the service meaning the provision has had to 

evolve to enable it to be sustainable and be an offer that is desirable to an increasingly 

active and independent age group. Traditional services are still offered as they are 

required at a later stage in retirement but a more active provision has come in to fill the 

gap. 

14.71 A large number of volunteers support and enable the provision offered at the day 

centres in the Borough and are an important resource, as the range of activities could 

not be offered without them. The Council continues to meet significant budget 

challenges in 2013/14 and a plan is being formulated to reduce the base budget by £1 

million over the next two financial years. This includes proposed savings on the Grant 

Aid budget (which core funds voluntary organisations) of £30,000 over the financial 

years 2014/15 – 2016/17. As a result of this, the Orchard Centre, Chertsey was closed 

in June 2011. Free transport has been provided to people who used this centre and 

they now can access the same services at one of the other three centres across the 


14.72 In April 2012 The Orchard Day Centre was re-opened as a dedicated centre for people 

with dementia (predominately later stages) and those who care for them. This is run by 

the Alzheimer’s Society. The centre operates from Monday to Friday 10am to 4pm 

excluding Bank Holidays. There is a high staff to client ratio and all staff are trained in 

dementia care. Support is also provided to the carer, with monthly support groups to 

share experiences and access advice and support. Age UK also occupy the Orchard, 

utilising this as a base for the support they provide for older people in Runnymede. This 

is a good example of RBC adapting a current service that they could not sustain to a 

new function that is very much needed in the Borough. 

14.73 A Wellbeing Centre is also provided at the Manor Farm Centre, Egham. This service is 

offered for early stage dementia care and provides memory clinics, a meeting space for 

carers and drop in support from the Alzheimer’s Society. Again RBC provide the 

building for this service but the service itself is provided by partner organisations, SCC, 

Surrey and Borders Partnership Trust and the Alzheimer’s Society. 

14.74 The development of this approach is in line with recommendations of the National 

Dementia strategy, which focuses on early diagnosis and specialist health and social 

care services. Alongside partner agencies such as Age UK and the Alzheimer’s Society, 

RBC has been able to provide a service that fulfills a number of the criteria of a 

Dementia friendly community, outlined in the strategy 52 . 

14.75 Other agencies such as Age UK, Citizens Advice Bureau and Benefits Advisors are 

regularly on hand at these centres to provide residents with advice and support to 

complete forms, and enable them to access the support and services they are entitled 

to. 

14.76 Community Meals: This service provides hot meals seven days a week for people 

who are housebound or who are unable to cook for themselves. The charge for a two 

course meal is £3.80 a day, Monday to Friday and £4.00 at weekends (at April 2012). A 

frozen meal service is also offered for those who wish to cook their own meals as and 

when required, and also for those who require a meal at the weekend; these are also 

delivered by the same team of drivers who deliver the hot meals. A flexible service is 

offered with Community Meals available on a permanent basis or for a short period of 

time dependant on individual needs. 

52 

(source: http://www.local.gov.uk/ageing-well) 

Page | 153 


14.77 Community Transport: Runnymede Council’s Community Transport scheme provides 

easily accessible minibuses for residents of the Borough so enabling children and 

adults with physical or learning disabilities to get to schools, day centres, health 

appointments and social activities. The services on offer are detailed within the 

community transport section earlier in this document. 

14.78 Community Alarm (Careline Service): RBC provides a specially developed, simple to 

use alarm system, which offers security to those most at risk, and peace of mind to the 

relatives and friends of those living alone. RBC also offers Telecare, providing monitors 

and sensors for a broad range of needs, for example bed sensors, smoke detectors, pill 

dispensers and fall detectors. The cost of this system is £4.70 per week (at April 2012) 

for the basic alarm unit plus any Telecare equipment. This service enables elderly 

residents of the Borough to remain in their own homes and retain their independence 

rather than moving into nursing or residential care. This is in line with the strategic shift 

of SCC from residential care to supporting people in the community. Such a shift can 

only be achieved with such initiatives in place. 

14.79 Independent Retired Living (IRL): Independent Retired Living (IRL) (formerly known 

as Sheltered Housing) is a provision of unfurnished, self-contained dwellings designed 

with the needs of older people in mind. RBC offers five schemes within the Borough: 

• Beomonds, Chertsey 

• Floral House, Chertsey 

• Grove Court, Egham 

• Heatherfields, New Haw, Addlestone 

• Darley Dene Court, Addlestone 

14.80 All IRL residents share the same rights as those living in the community, but also have 

the additional support of an on site, dedicated manager and alarm systems which can 

used in the case of an emergency 24 hours a day 365 days a year. To be eligible for 

this scheme, residents must be on the housing register and fulfill a number of 

requirements that are based on the level of need. For those retired residents who are 

financially better off, there are private schemes within the Borough. Residential, nursing 

and sheltered housing provision in the Borough is detailed further in Chapter 8, private 

health care, nursing and residential care. 

14.81 Runnymede Association of Voluntary Services (RAVS): RAVS is a key 

infrastructure organisation for Runnymede as it assists other voluntary and community 

organisations in recruiting volunteers, accessing funding and with management issues 

such as governance. 

14.82 RAVS also assists in the following ways: 

• Supporting voluntary and community organisations 

• Promoting voluntary work 

• Being a voice for the voluntary sector 

• Identifying gaps in provision – working in partnership with other agencies 

14.83 RAVS are currently located at The Sainsbury Centre, Chertsey. 

14.84 Runnymede and Spelthorne Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB): Runnymede and 

Spelthorne CAB provide appointments and outreach services across Runnymede and 

Spelthorne. A comprehensive service is offered over the phone or by visiting in person. 

Everyone is offered a short session with an assessor and depending on particular 

needs a further time is allocated to assist. Runnymede Rentstart is operated by 

Runnymede CAB and provides assistance to homeless couples and single people who 

Page | 154 


need help in securing privately rented accommodation. The assistance is by way of a 

deposit bond, which is given to the landlord in order to secure accommodation for the 

client. 

14.85 A number of other charities, community, and voluntary services also exist across the 

Borough to support the Borough’s older residents. 


14.86 The Local Plan has an important role to play in ensuring that third sector organisations, 

which often represent large numbers of people in the community, are engaged in the 

planning process and have the capacity to comment and become involved in planning 

for the needs of residents over the plan period. 

14.87 Given the emphasis on elderly and vulnerable people being cared for in their homes/in 

the community where possible, it is considered that the location policies in the core 

strategy are particularly relevant. Specifically, Location Policy 1 (LP01) is clear that new 

development will be focussed in the Borough’s Urban Areas, with the exception of the 

new development at the former DERA site. 

14.88 Within the Borough however, there are residents living in more isolated locations. In 

such cases, Strategic Policy 9 (SP09) is considered to be particularly relevant as it 

seeks to improve accessibility by sustainable modes of transport ‘to town centres, local 

centres, and facilities needed on an everyday basis’. 


14.89 An increase in population coupled with a change in the age profile of the Borough’s 

residents is likely to produce greater demand for the services offered by community 

and voluntary groups. Specifically it is considered likely that a greater number of groups 

will be seeking funding and accommodation and an increase in the number of 

volunteers will be required to support the service. The Council is likely to face further 

challenges when designing services and ensuring older people can access the support 

they need. 

14.90 Changes to Government and regional policies, in conjunction with budgetary pressures 

means it is unlikely any new provision will occur in the Borough over the plan period. 

Existing services are currently not at capacity and as such, it is considered that a need 

to adapt and revise existing provision is the most likely outcome to offer an attractive 

service and meet the needs of the local community, rather than the provision of new 

facilities. 


14.91 The main sources of income for services for older people are through a combination of 

revenue generation through charging for the various services (telecare for example), 

and through internal revenue streams. A small percentage of income is received from 

SCC. 

14.92 There are no specific schemes however which are known to require funding at this 

time. 


14.93 The main impacts and risks to this type of infrastructure designation are considered to 

be: 

• income reductions from people not using the services, thus impacting on the 

councils ability to sustain the existing service 

Page | 155 


• reduced budgets internally within RBC, given the budget review and 

pressures to reduce spending across the authority; discretionary services 

such as these are at risk. 

• other infrastructure changes such as access to services and public transport 

with potential reductions of bus services, access to healthcare, with potential 

changes as a result of NHS reform. 

14.94 In the current climate, there is considered to be a medium to high risk of these 

scenarios occurring (either alone or in combination). 

Conclusion 


IDPR053 

Income reductions from people not 

using the services 

High 

Low 

IDPR054 Reduced budgets internally within RBC High High 

14.95 As outlined in Section 8, Health, there is a significant change in the Government’s 

approach to caring for elderly people, with an emphasis on independent living. Overall 

it is considered that there are sufficient facilities and capacity within the Borough to 

accommodate growth during the plan period. RBC strategies will continue to develop 

innovative ‘Ageing Well’ approaches alongside partner agencies to deliver the 

necessary services in an ageing society. 

14.96 The challenges within this area are not so much in lack of provision but raising 

awareness across organisations of what actually is available and engaging with the 

community to tailor the service. 

Youth Centres 


14.97 SCC is responsible for the majority of the services offered to this age group, with RBC 

responsible for schemes such as holiday clubs and day trips as well as acting in a 

consultee role to inform developments within this infrastructure designation. 

14.98 The County is continuing to review it’s spending across a range of services. As a result, 

this particular provision has gone through and is still going through a restructuring 

process to reduce spending and revise the services it offers young people; in order to 

meet their needs and to increase participation. 

14.99 In 2009, SCC’s ‘Surrey Children & Young People’s Plan’ identified key priorities for 

children and young people, including access to integrated local services. A key 

objective of the plan was to deliver the right services, in the right place. This agenda is 

still current and the Government emphasises the role this sector plays in supporting 

young people and achieving its ambitions that no young person is outside some form of 

education, employment or training (people who fall under the category of ‘Not in 

employment, education or training’ or NEET). 

14.100 Ten thousand 10-19 year olds live in the Borough. 95% of those aged 16-19 and above 

participate in some form of education, employment or training 53 . No wards in 

Runnymede have a higher proportion of NEET young people than the South East 

regional average (which is at 5.6%). Englefield Green and Egham Hythe were found to 

have the highest number of NEET young people between August 2009 and July 2010 

at 3% and 4.3% respectively. The number of NEET young people in Egham Hythe 

53 

Surrey County Council Publication ‘The local offer in Runnymede: Participation for all Surrey young people, 2012) 

Page | 156 


therefore exceeds the proportion of young people not in education, employment or 

training across the county, which is estimated to be at 4.1% 54 . 

14.101 The Surrey Youth Development Service works with people aged 11-25, focusing on 13- 

19 year olds. The Service aims to put young people first by identifying and addressing 

their needs, and offering additional and complementary learning opportunities that are 

distinct from those offered by formal education. Research shows that a “safe place to 

meet” is high on the priority list for both young people and adults, and the Service 

seeks to maintain appropriate building-based youth centres that offer a programme of 

opportunities and activities. The Service aims to work in partnership with other 

organisations and encourages a multi-disciplinary approach e.g. adding value to 

existing or new provision, making their buildings available for use by others. 

14.102 The overall proportion of children and young people living in poverty in Runnymede is 

generally low compared to the South East regional average of 14.5%. Whilst this may 

be the case however, the following wards were found in 2008 to have a greater number 

of children and young people living in poverty than the regional average 55 : 

• 21.4% in Englefield Green West 

• 17.6% in Egham Hythe 

• 16.7% in Chertsey St Ann's 

• 14.8% in Addlestone Bourneside 

14.103 In response to these findings, in the Families in Poverty Needs Assessment (Part 2), 

February 2011, Surrey County Council recommends that planning provision partners 

“ensure there are flexible learning and development opportunities available locally that 

parents are aware of, which helps gain skills for work, particularly in Chertsey St Ann’s 

and Englefield Green West”. 

14.104 The Youth Support Service offers a range of provision that reflects the current national 

and Surrey County Council policies and initiatives and the previous government’s case 

for delivering the right kind of services in the right place. Opportunities to participate 

can be accessed across the Borough of Runnymede and the following range of 

activities/services are offered: 

• Services for Young People: Provides support to ensure all young people 

participate in education or training 

• Youth Support Service: Provides preventative work for young people, across 

the whole of Surrey who are not currently in education, employment or 

training or who are in the criminal justice system. This service is provided in 

conjunction with partners in health, education, employment and training. 

• Youth Engagement: Working links facilitate an online platform providing 

independent education, training and careers advice and guidance, a digital 

media equipped bus and a social network portal. This service is accessible to 

all young people. 

• Duke of Edinburgh Award: Delivered by the Youth Support Service – working 

with schools and voluntary youth organisations. Available to all young people 

in the Borough. 

• Centre Based Youth Work: The Youth Consortium manage open access 

youth work to prevent young people from offending or falling out of education, 

employment or training (NEET). This work is delivered in Runnymede at the 

54 

Source: NEET figures by ward, SCC Connexions, 2010. 

55 

Source: NI 116: Proportion of children in poverty, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), 2008. 

Page | 157 


following centres and as part of the restructuring process, Surrey County 

Council are now working with partner organisations to deliver this service. 

• Addlestone (Eikon Trust) 

• Egham (Eikon Trust) 

• Englefield Green (Eikon Trust) 

• Chertsey Gogmore – (Woking YMCA) 

• Surrey Outdoor Learning and Development: The outdoor learning programme 

motivates and engages young people to participate and commit to a 

programme of positive learning to develop personal, physical and social 

skills. They collaborate with local schools to identify the needs of young 

people. 

• Small grants: Surrey County Council allocated £15,000 for small, voluntary 

organisations working directly with young people (agreed by local committees 

by a councillor representative and allocated to organisations within 

Runnymede). 

14.105 Runnymede Small Grant allocations made so far are: 

Organisation: Addlestone & Chertsey Youth Group 

Project: Activity Weekend 

Amount: £3873 

Details: Funding to cover an activity weekend and on-going running costs to 

encourage more young people to join the youth group. 

Organisation: The Boys' Brigade North Surrey Group Camp 

Project: Equipment store and stoves 

Amount: £240 

Details: Cost of an equipment store and 3 Trangia stove to allow young people to 

prepare hot drinks and small meals for themselves as part of an activity programme 

in Dartmoor. 


Organisation: Chertsey Hub 

Project: CORE Youth Summer Project 

Amount: £2,500 

Details: Summer residential camp for 60 young people 

Source: Surrey County Council 

• Year 11-12 Transition: Working Links support young people in their 

preparation for college or employment by providing interactive careers 

information advice and guidance through the u-explore website, offering 

mentoring and through a summer holiday programme. 

• Learners with Learning Disabilities and Difficult Assessment Team: The team 

support young people with a statement of special education need when they 

are moving from school to college 

14.106 The Local Plan has an important role to play in ensuring that young people are 

engaged in the planning process and have the capacity to comment. Runnymede 

Borough Council has a Youth Council that meets monthly to discuss the needs of 

young people in the Borough. They are very proactive in raising funds to support the 

existing services. 

Page | 158 



14.107 There is no planned expansion of this type of infrastructure in the Borough at this time 

(in terms of physical infrastructure or facilities). Changes to how these services are 

accessed and the need of young people along with budgetary pressures means it is 

unlikely any new provision will occur. Capacities are currently not full and as such, a 

need to adapt and revise existing provision is the most likely outcome over the plan 

period to offer an attractive service to meet the needs of young people and to provide 

the resultant benefits in associated areas of education, employment and a safer 

community. 


14.108 This section is not applicable in this instance given that there is no known planned 

expansion of this type of infrastructure in the Borough over the plan period. 


14.109 Based on conversations with officers from this sector, the main impacts and risks to this 

type of infrastructure are considered to be whether it can remain user-friendly and 

accessible. Other infrastructure such as public transport already impact on how young 

people access the various services, restricted by existing bus services. Further 

reductions in bus services would further impact on those who are most deprived and 

disadvantaged. 

Conclusion 


IDPR053 Reduced accessibility to youth centres Medium High 

14.110 The challenges within this area do not so much relate to lack of provision but to 

continuing to develop this offer to keep it relevant and engaging with young people in 

the Borough in order to sustain its provision over the plan period. 

Places of worship 


14.111 Seventy five percent of Surrey’s population said they were Christian in the 2001 

census. The next largest religion in the County at this time was Muslim, which made up 

1% of the population. A national study has shown however that of those who claim to 

be Christian, only 32% of Christians actively practice their religion, compared with 80% 

of Muslims. The Borough in Surrey with the largest Muslim population is Woking, and 

that with the largest Jewish population is Elmbridge. (Surrey i-2001 census: key 

statistics for Surrey and Districts, and JSNA chapter-Religion, May 2011). 

14.112 In Runnymede itself, in 2009, 81.5% of the population identified themselves as white 

British (JSNA chapter, ethnicity). In addition small percentages of other ethnicities such 

as Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Black Caribbean, Black African and Chinese were 

reported. 

14.113 Surrey Faith Links estimated in 2010 there were in the region of 45 faith organisations 

and places of worship across the Borough. Whilst the majority of these are Christian 

places of worship, the Surrey Muslim Centre is located in Albert Road in Addlestone 

(previously St Augustine Church of England) and there is also a Society of Friends 

(Quakers) meeting house in Egham. There are no synagogues within the Borough, 

although the nearest two synagogues are located in Horvath Close, Weybridge (The 

North West Surrey Synagogue) and in Westbrook Road, Staines (The Staines and 

District Synagogue), 

Page | 159 


14.114 Recently, two churches (Church of England & Methodist) in Englefield Green have 

merged and become St Judes United Church, with the unused Englefield Green 

Methodist Church converted to a village centre with a number of community facilities 

(Revd Sue Loveday, coordinator of Churches Together in Surrey). 

14.115 As communities becomes more diverse there is a need for sufficient buildings to allow 

for people of various faiths and ethnic backgrounds to worship locally. 


14.116 Strategic Policy SP04 seeks to secure the retention of existing community 

infrastructure that meets local needs, unless it can be demonstrated that alternative 

provision can be made as part of development proposals, or the loss of any facility can 

be fully justified. 


14.117 There have been a number of noteworthy planning approvals in the Borough in recent 

years relating to places of worship. These are detailed as follows: 

• Erection of a new youth club/church hall following the demolition of the 

existing hall at Community Hall, 96 Woodham Lane & Land at All Saints 

Church New Haw (approved under RU.08/0256) (completed). 

• An extension was granted to the Surrey Muslim Centre, Albert Road, 

Addlestone in 2008 to provide a washroom, toilet and cold room for storage 

of deceased prior to burial (approved under RU.08/0691) (under 

construction). 

• Erection of 2 storey Church Centre at St John the Baptist Church, High 

Street, Egham incorporating glazed link to Grade II* Listed Church and part 

single storey, part two storey extension to existing church following demolition 

of existing Church Centre and existing lean to extension on eastern side of 

existing Church (approved under RU.11/1029). Not yet implemented. 

• Extensions have been granted at Christ Church, Christchurch Road, Virginia 

Water (originally approved under RU.09/0078 and time limit for 

implementation extended under RU.11/1230) although the permission has 

not yet been implemented. 

• Extensions have been granted at St Judes United Church, St Judes Road, 

Englefield Green (under RU.12/0281) although the permission has not yet 

been implemented. 

14.118 There are no other known plans to provide new places of worship in the Borough or 

expand existing facilities. 


14.119 The extensions to the places of worship summarised above will be funded privately. 

Funding 

ID 

IDPF154 

IDPF155 

IDPF156 

IDPF157 

Description 

Extensions to the Surrey Muslim 

Centre, Albert Road, Addlestone 

Erection of new Church Centre at St 

John the Baptist Church, High Street, 

Egham 

Erection of extensions at Christ 

Church, Christchurch Rd, VW 

Erection of extensions at St Judes 

United Church, Englefield Green 

Estimated 

Cost 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Key 

Provider(s) 

Funded 

privately 

Funded 

privately 

Funded 

privately 

Funded 

privately 

Page | 160 



14.120 The main risk to places of worship is their loss to other uses. Given the increase in 

diversity in Surrey and across the UK more generally however, it is considered that the 

risk of this occurring is relatively low in this instance. 


IDPR054 Loss of places of worship to other uses Low Low 

Conclusion 

14.121 Overall the number of places of worship in the Borough is considered adequate at the 

current time. Should additional provision be required over the plan period, it is 

considered that this would be justified on a needs basis. Any forthcoming planning 

applications for new or extended places of worship would be considered on their 

individual merits. 

Cemeteries & Crematoriums 


14.122 There is increasing concern about the availability of burial sites across the country and 

this is an emerging issue in Runnymede. There is generally a good distribution of 

cemeteries and churchyards across the Borough, but there is a shortage of grave 

space in some. Specifically, there are four Council owned cemeteries and a number of 

churches with graveyards in the following locations: 

Cemeteries 


cemetery off St Judes 

Road, Englefield Green 

Thorpe Cemetery off Ten 

Acre Lane, Thorpe 

Chertsey Cemetery off St 

Johns Way, Chertsey 

Addlestone Cemetery off 

Green Lane, Addlestone 

Churches with graveyards 

St Judes United Church, St Judes Road, 


St John the Baptist Church, High Street, Egham 

Christ Church, Christchurch Road, Virginia Water 

Christ Church, Guildford Road, Ottershaw 

Holy Trinity Church, Lyne 

14.123 The largest of the Borough’s cemeteries is the Englefield Green Cemetery with an 

approximate area of 5 hectares. A Muslim Burial Service is provided at Englefield 

Green Cemetery. 

14.124 There is a Children's Memorial Garden in Addlestone cemetery, which caters for 

stillbirths, NVF (non viable foetus) and cremated remains, working in conjunction with 

St Peter's and Ashford Hospital NHS Trust 

14.125 In terms of capacity, it is not known whether any of the churches with graveyards in the 

Borough are still accepting burials. In relation to Council owned cemeteries, Englefield 

Green and Chertsey cemeteries have sufficient capacity to accommodate internments 

for many years (and beyond 2026). All of the available space at Addlestone cemetery 

will be used by early 2013 and the cemetery at Thorpe is nearing capacity. As such, 

options for extending both these cemeteries are being explored by the Council at the 

current time. 

Page | 161 


14.126 Whilst cremation is an alternative to burial (current figures suggest that around 70% of 

all funerals are cremations (Runnymede Borough Council website), there are no 

crematoriums in the Borough. The nearest crematoriums are located at Hanworth, 

Guildford and Leatherhead. The capacity of these existing crematoriums is unknown. 


14.127 It is considered reasonable to assume that new development proposed under Local 

Plan Policy LP02 (housing provision and distribution) over the plan period will impact 

on the existing cemeteries in the Borough and crematoriums in the area surrounding 

the Borough. 


14.128 It is considered reasonable to assume that an increase in the population in the Borough 

over the plan period is likely to increase demand for cemeteries in the Borough and 

reduce their capacity. It would be up to the Council to decide whether to extend 

current/provide new cemeteries. 

14.129 Within the Council, there is an aspiration to extend Addlestone Cemetery. Whilst the 

Council’s capital spending programme 2011/12 to 2015/16 budgeted £199,000 for this 

project in 2013/14 (this money was for the laying out of a new cemetery on Council 

owned land), at the current time all capital spending has been frozen. It is therefore 

unclear whether this proposal will be realised during the plan period. There is also an 

aspiration to extend Thorpe Cemetery or provide a new cemetery in Thorpe if additional 

land becomes available. 

14.130 If funding becomes available, the dilapidated/dangerous memorials at Egham 

Churchyard will also be refurbished. 

14.131 There are however no known plans to erect a crematorium within the Borough during 

the plan period. 


14.132 The extension to Addlestone Cemetery would be funded by Runnymede Borough 

Council. It is estimated that this would cost in the region of £200,000. 

14.133 It is estimated that an extension to Thorpe Cemetery or the provision of a new 

cemetery in Thorpe would cost in the region in £50,000 although no funds have been 

allocated for these works at the current time by RBC. 

Funding 

ID 

Description 

Estimated 

Cost 

Key 

Provider(s) 

IDPF158 Extension to Addlestone Cemetery £200,000 RBC 

IDPF159 

IDPF160 


Extension of Thorpe 

Cemetery/provision of new cemetery 

in Thorpe 

Refurbishment of 

dilapidated/dangerous memorials at 

Egham Churchyard 

£50,000 RBC 

£4,000 RBC 

14.134 The main risks to this type of infrastructure are considered to be threat from 

development reducing the amount of available land to allow for the expansion of 

existing cemeteries/provision of new cemeteries in the Borough, and capacity failing to 

meet future requirements (whether existing cemeteries are extended, or new 

cemeteries are provided, or not). Whilst Addlestone and Thorpe cemeteries have 

limited capacity for burials over the plan period, Chertsey and Englefield Green 

cemeteries have capacity until beyond 2026. As such, whilst there is considered to be a 

Page | 162 


Conclusion 

medium risk of further land not coming forward over the plan period to support 

expansion of existing cemeteries or provision of new facilities, the severity of such a 

risk is considered to be low as the Borough contains cemeteries which still have 

capacity to meet demand over the plan period. 


IDPR055 

IDPR056 

Lack of available land for extension of 

existing cemeteries or provision of new 

cemeteries 

Supply of space for burials failing to 

meet demand 

Medium 

14.135 Overall, over the plan period, it seems likely that the capacity of cemeteries in the 

Borough will continue to decrease given the increase in the population which is 

predicted. Whilst Addlestone and Thorpe cemeteries have limited capacity to meet 

demand over the plan period, their extension is being considered by the Council. Even 

if these facilities are not extended, Chertsey and Englefield Green cemeteries have 

sufficient capacity to meet demand over the plan period. As such, the existing provision 

is considered adequate. 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Page | 163 


Chapter 15. Delivery 

Governance Arrangements 

15.1 The Council is committed to helping ensure that the necessary infrastructure is 

delivered over the plan period to support the development forecasted to come forward, 

and to deliver the Council’s spatial strategy. Governance arrangements to ensure that 

this happens will be considered in detail and put in place prior to the adoption of the 

Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging regime in April 2014. 

15.2 It should be noted that the Council has substantial experience in this area, putting in 

place and successfully operating systems to monitor and collect S106 money 

generated through the Council’s tariff based system, as well as monies collected in line 

with the Council’s Avoidance Strategy for the TBHSPA. Collected monies are 

distributed to the relevant agencies to ensure that it is able to co-ordinate the delivery 

of infrastructure with development as it comes forward. 

15.3 Whatever governance arrangements are decided upon, the Council will ensure that 

there are resources in place to ensure (amongst other things) that: 

• Systems are put in place to collect and monitor CIL payments; 

• Arrangements are put in place to ensure that collected CIL monies are 

passed to relevant departments and organisations, to ensure that 

infrastructure is delivered in a timely manner, as well as local communities 

and neighbourhood forums; 

• There is regular liaison with stakeholders to keep abreast of new 

infrastructure projects which are proposed to come forward and to ensure that 

the status of existing schemes identified in the IDP are known. Such 

information will be used to keep the IDP a relevant and up to date document; 

• The enforcement functions associated with non payment of CIL monies are 

carried out; and, 

• An annual progress report is prepared for consideration by the Planning 

Committee and for inclusion in the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). This will 

detail how much CIL money has been collected annually, how the money has 

been spent, the amount for admin expenses that has been collected etc (as 

required under section 62 of the CIL regulations). It will be published on the 

Council’s website. 

Forging links with partners 

15.4 The preparation of the IDP has helped strengthen relationships between the Council 

and various agencies. It is considered that these relationships will help develop 

structures to facilitate a different, more collaborative way of working with partners in the 

future. As such, work on the IDP is considered to offer a platform for developing a 

spatial planning approach and integrating the capital investment programmes of 

various services with planning for new development. The relationships with partners 

therefore need to be maintained and strengthened over the plan period so that such an 

approach can be achieved. 

15.5 In particular, it will be important to forge strong links with Surrey County Council and 

the Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership to ensure a joined up approach is taken 

in delivering essential infrastructure across the Borough. 

15.6 Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP): The Enterprise M3 Local 

Enterprise Partnership (LEP) is a public/private partnership set up to support and 

sustain economic growth at a local level. The LEP operates within a network of existing 

business support, provided by the private sector, the public sector, and a range of 

membership and third sector bodies. The LEP works in partnership with these bodies. It 

also works within a network of existing public sector funding and decision making, on 

Page | 164 


economic development, planning and infrastructure delivery for example, and cooperates 

closely with the network of adjacent Local Enterprise Partnerships on issues 

of shared interest. The Growing Enterprise Fund has been established by Enterprise 

M3 LEP, using funds awarded to it by the Government’s Growing Places Fund. The 

fund has a total value of £21.7m. The fund is available to help support economic growth 

by addressing the infrastructure and site constraints that may be impeding 

development, helping to create housing and jobs for local people. 

15.7 It was announced in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement that the Government will 

provide new money to support the Local Enterprise Partnerships, and from April 2015 

the Government will place more of the funding that currently goes to local transport, 

housing, skills and getting people back to work into a single pot that LEPs can bid for. 

15.8 Surrey County Council: Key provider of transport, education, libraries and waste 

infrastructure. Also the lead flood authority for Surrey. 

15.9 It is also considered noteworthy that RBC itself operates a Business Partnership which 

aims to bring together the local business community, three local Chambers of 

Commerce, Surrey Police, schools, colleges and the Borough Council, in order to 

tackle issues affecting businesses across Runnymede. Again, it is considered that 

continuing to forge strong relationships with the Business Partnership will help foster 

economic growth over the plan period. 

Development Management and Planning Obligations 

15.10 The Council takes a positive approach to Development Management and is keen to 

work with landowners and developers to help bring forward development that will 

deliver the strategic objectives in the Local Plan and help deliver infrastructure to 

unlock growth over the plan period. As such, the Council actively encourages pre 

application discussions to steer proposals in the formulative stages. In addition, the 

Council has appointed independent viability consultants to advise the Council on 

suitable levels of CIL payments which could be charged to help secure policy 

objectives without damaging the overall viability of the proposals which will come 

forward in the Borough over the plan period. 

15.11 Even when a CIL charging regime is in place across the Borough, physical or financial 

contributions secured as part of the planning process outside of CIL will continue to be 

important in mitigating the likely impacts that new development will have on the area in 

which they are based. S106 agreements will continue to be an important part of the 

planning process to secure contributions towards affordable housing and Strategic 

Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) monies as part of the Thames Basin 

Heaths mitigation strategy. Other scheme specific infrastructure may also be secured 

through this mechanism. 

15.12 Strategic Policy 04 of the draft Local Plan confirms the Council’s commitment to 

securing appropriate contributions to, and directly providing, infrastructure and 

mitigation required to support new development. 

Infrastructure Schedule 

15.13 An Infrastructure Schedule is contained in Appendix 1 of the IDP. This schedule 

indicates the essential and desirable infrastructure in the Borough, provides details of 

estimated costings, sources of funding and delivery phasing over the plan period when 

known. 

Monitoring and Updating the IDP 

15.14 Infrastructure providers including Surrey County Council, the Environment Agency, 

Thames Water, Affinity Water (previously Veolia Water) and other internal Council 

departments have been involved in the development of the Local Plan through 

Page | 165 


consultation at each stage of production of the document (see the Council’s Statement 

of Consultation for further information in this regard). There will be continued 

discussions with infrastructure providers to inform the IDP and ensure that it is kept 

accurate and up to date over the plan period. As discussed, the Council is committed to 

putting strong governance arrangements in place to ensure that this is achieved. 

15.15 This is the first IDP prepared for Runnymede The baseline position in this IDP will allow 

RBC and its partners to prioritise investment decisions and address funding gaps over 

the lifetime of the Local Plan. The IDP is a live document which will be regularly 

updated over the lifetime of the Local Plan. The Infrastructure Schedule should be read 

alongside the IDP and is also a live document which will be reviewed and updated over 

the plan period. It is likely that the updating of the schedule will go hand in hand with 

the updating up the IDP as the two documents are intrinsically linked. 

Page | 166 


Chapter 16. Delivery Plan 

16.1 The IDP concludes that over the plan period, the amount of forecasted development, in 

conjunction with the subsequent growth in population will require new or improved 

infrastructure to be provided. The key areas which have been identified are: 

• Provision of additional early years, primary and secondary school places will 

be required to support growth over the plan period; 

• Improvements to the Borough’s transport network to improve capacity, ease 

congestion and improve safety; 

• Continued provision of sufficient Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace 

(SANGS) to mitigate against the impact of new residential development on 

the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) over the plan 

period; 

• Improvements to the Borough’s open spaces; and, 

• Provision of infrastructure to support the delivery of the mixed use 

development which is forecasted to come forward at the former DERA site. 

16.2 Improvements will be delivered by a range of providers and through a variety of 

budgets. Delivery of certain infrastructure will require partnership working between the 

private and public sectors, for example at the former DERA site. Some infrastructure, in 

particular, improvements to the transport network, will at times, be funded by developer 

contributions. 

16.3 What is evident from both County and Borough capital budgets is that the capital 

finances available at the current time to support infrastructure improvements/provision 

are at a low level. Specifically, capital spending at Borough level is frozen at the current 

time. It is unknown how long capital spending will be frozen for. At County level, the 

County has produced a medium term financial plan (MTFP) for 2013/18. As part of this 

plan, the County has set a capital programme for the next 5 years of £683 million (this 

figure is as stated in the October 2012 budget monitoring review 56 ). A significant 

proportion of this money (originally estimated at £197 million 57 ) will be borrowed. The 

remainder of the capital funding will come from government grants, revenue and capital 

reserves, third party contributions and capital receipts. 

16.4 Capital funding for district council led improvements comes principally from capital 

receipts from the sale of land and property in the Council’s ownership. However, the 

increasing costs faced by the Council, in conjunction with the reduced revenue budget 

from central government, mean that capital receipts play an important tool in ensuring 

income to the revenue budget via the investment income that they attract. Delivery of 

capital improvements will largely be funded through a combination of developer 

contributions, other ad hoc capital sources such as lottery funding and where available, 

the use of capital receipts. 

16.5 In terms of infrastructure which is expected to be required over the plan period, it is 

considered that infrastructure can either be considered as ‘essential’ or ‘desirable’. The 

IS in Appendix 1 categorises the forecast infrastructure as such. As noted in chapter 1 

of this report, essential infrastructure in this context represents items without which the 

development forecasted in the Local Plan could not come forward. Desirable 

infrastructure represents items which, whilst not vital to unlock growth, will support 

growth and benefit local communities over the plan period. 

56 

Budget monitoring-October 2012 

57 

Surrey County Council Medium Term Financial Plan 2012-2017, Section 1: Overview 

Page | 167 


16.6 The table below outlines the total known costs of the essential infrastructure which will 

be required over the plan period to deliver the development forecasted in the Local 

Plan, and, after taking into account existing streams of funding, the size of the funding 

gaps identified. There are numerous other projects/schemes which have not been 

accounted for in this table but which are detailed in the Infrastructure Schedule in 

Appendix 1. 

Table 17- essential infrastructure forecasted to be required to deliver the development forcasted 

in the Local Plan 


category 

Open and 

Green 

Spaces 

Education 

Transport 


required 

Provision and 

maintenance of 

SANG over the plan 

period to support 

new residential 

development in the 

zone of influence 

Provision of 

additional primary 

and secondary 

spaces school 

places over the next 

10 years 

Various schemes to 

the road network 

and relating to 

public transport 

Essential/desirable Funding 

required 

Funding 

gap 

Essential £1,977,600 £1,977,600 

Essential 

£53.7 million 

(up to 

2021/22) 

£34.1 

million 58 

Essential £23,469,500 £12,274,500 

TOTAL SIZE OF FUNDING GAP £48,352,100 

16.7 It should be noted that the infrastructure which is to be provided as part of the mixed 

use development at the former DERA site has not been incorporated into the table 

above. This infrastructure is nevertheless considered to be essential. A breakdown of 

the infrastructure expected to be delivered at the site is detailed in the IS in appendix 1. 

The cost of providing the majority of the required infrastructure is not known at this 

stage although it is envisaged that initially all of the infrastructure would be funded by 

the developer. 

16.8 The limited availability of public sector funding means that the primary source of 

funding to bridge the funding gap outlined in table 17 will be through the Community 

Infrastructure Levy. It is expected that a charging schedule will be adopted by April 

2014. 

58 

This is based on a ‘better case’ scenario provided by SCC. The gap could be at a level of £53.7 million if no Basic Need Capital 

Grant is received from Government over the next 10 years. The funding gap will therefore need to be reviewed the basic need 

grant for 2013/14 has been announced. 

Page | 168 


Appendix 1: Infrastructure schedule 

Type of 

infrastructure 

Component Sch ID Scheme 

Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 

Delivery 

Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Education Pre school IDPF001 Private nursery at the 


Essential 

Within the next 

6-10 years 

Unknown 

Initially by Crest 

Nicholson 

operations ltd and 

CGNU life 

assurance ltd 

Initially Crest 

Nicholson 

operations 

ltd and 

CGNU life 

assurance ltd 

None 

identified 

Education 

Primary 

schools 

IDPF002 

Expansion of Trumps 

Green Infant School to 

increase capacity (increase 

by 90 places) 

Essential 

Expansion 

would start in 

Sept 2013 

Approx 

£1,129,230 

SCC 

SCC and 

Governing 

Body of 

Trumps 

Green Infant 

School 

School would 

remain at 

current 

capacity 

Education 

Primary 

schools 

IDPF004 

Change of Thorpe C of E 

Infant School to a primary 

school (would provide 120 

additional junior places) 

Essential 

Change in 

status to take 

effect from Sept 

2013 

Approx 

£1,505,640 

SCC 

SCC and 

school 

governing 

body 

School would 

remain as an 

infant school 

only 

Education 

Primary 

schools 

IDPF005 

Change of Darley Infant 

School to a primary school 

(would provide 120 

additional junior places) 

Essential 

Change in 

status to take 

effect from Sept 

2013 

Approx 

£1,505,640 

SCC 

SCC and 

school 

governing 

body 

School would 

remain as an 

infant school 

only 

Education 

Primary 

schools 

IDPF003 

Expansion of St Ann’s 

Heath Junior School (would 

create an additional 104 

Essential 

Expansion 

would start on 

1 st Sept 2015 

£1,304,888 SCC SCC and 

school 

governing 

School would 

remain at 

current 

Page | 169

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

places) body capacity 

Education 

Primary 

schools 

IDPF006 

Provision of a new primary 

school at the former DERA 

site (number of places 

unknown) 

Essential 


6-10 years 

Unknown 

Initially by Crest 

Nicholson 


CGNU life 

assurance ltd, 

SCC 

Crest 

Nicholson 

operations 

ltd and 

CGNU life 

assurance 

ltd, 

None 

identified 

SCC 

Education 

Primary 

schools 

IDPF007 

One additional 1fe primary 

expansion (school 

unconfirmed at this time). 

Number of additional 

places also unknown 

Essential By 2014 Unknown SCC SCC School would 

remain at 

current 

capacity 

Education 

Primary 

schools 

IDPF008 

One additional 1fe infant 

expansion (school 

unconfirmed at this time). 

Number of additional 

places also unknown 


remain at 

current 

capacity 

Education 

Primary 

schools 

IDPF009 

Infant to primary expansion 

(additional junior places 

only)-school unconfirmed at 

this time and number of 

additional places 


remain at 

current 

capacity 

Education 

Secondary 

schools 

IDPF011 

Various extensions and 

alterations to Sir William 

From current 

time up to 2020 

Unknown Funded privately Sir William 

Perkins’s 

School would 

remain in 

Page | 170

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Perkins’s School campus School current form 

Education 

Secondary 

schools 

IDPF010 

Various extensions and 

alterations to TASIS 

campus 

From current 

time up to 

2015-2018 

Unknown Funded privately TASIS School would 

remain in 

current form 

Education 

Higher 

education 

IDPF013 

Growth on campus at 

RHUL (specific details of 

proposals unknown) 

Desirable 

Likely to come 

forward in 

phases over 

plan period 

Unknown 

RHUL and its 

partners 

RHUL 

The campus 

would remain 

in its current 

form. This 

would limit 

the growth 

plans of the 

University. 

Education 

Further 

education 

IDPF012 

Various works to Strodes 

College following 2010 

planning consent 

Desirable 

Permission 

implemented 

Unknown Unknown Unknown If funding 

cannot be 

sourced, the 

drama studio 

will not be 

built. 

Transport 

Non 

strategic 

Highway 

network 

IDPF014 

Works to the Runnymede 

Roundabout 

Essential 

Indicative 

construction 

start-2015 

£5million 

SCC/ S.106/ RBC 

/ Regional 


funding/ LEP 

Surrey 

County 

Council/ 

RBC 

Roundabout 

would remain 

as at present 

Transport 

Non 

strategic 

highway 

network 

IDPF015 

Highway improvements at 

Egham High 

Street/Church Road, 

Egham (specifically, 

provision of 2 new bus 

Essential By 2015 £150,000 Developer 

contributions 

Surrey 

County 

Council 

It should be 

notified that 

to deliver this 

scheme, 

additional 

Page | 171

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

stops/shelters and a signal 

controlled crossing) 

land will need 

to be 

secured. 

Transport 

Non 

strategic 

Highway 

network 

IDPF016 

Road safety scheme at 

Whitehall Lane, Egham 

Essential 

Unknown at 

this stage 

£3,000 Unknown SCC None 

identified 

Transport 

Non 

strategic 

Highway 

network 

IDPF017 

Wapshott Road, Egham: 

road safety scheme, traffic 

management 

Essential Unknown 2 options 

under 

consideratio 

n: road 

closure- 

£15,000, 

traffic 

calming 

measures- 

£75,000 

Local Committee SCC None 

identified 

Transport 

Non 

strategic 

Highway 

network 

IDPF018 

Englefield Green and 

Egham: controlled parking 

zone 

Essential Unknown £100,000 Local Committee SCC/RBC None 

identified 

Transport 

Non 

strategic 

Highway 

network 

IDPF019 

Widening of High Street 

and Station Rd Addlestone, 

adjustment to Church Rd 

and Crouch Oak Lane 

Essential Unknown £1.5 million 

(although 

scheme still 

at 

conceptual 

stage so 

this figure is 

Unknown SCC Subject to 

securing 

additional 

land 

Page | 172

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

subject to 

change) 

Transport 

Non 

strategic 

Highway 

network 

IDPF020 

A317 St Peter’s Waydedicated 

M25 lane 

(feasibility/design only) 

Essential March 2013 £5,000 Runnymede Local 

Cmte 

Surrey 

County 


It should be 

notified that 

to deliver this 

scheme, 

additional 

land will need 

to be 

secured. 

Transport 

Non 

strategic 

Highway 

network 

IDPF021 

Safety improvements at 

A318 Chertsey Road, on 

approach to Addlestone 

Moor Roundabout 

Essential By 2015 £11, 500 Unknown SCC None 

identified 

Transport 

Non 

strategic 

Highway 

network 

IDPF022 

Road safety scheme at 

Guildford Road/St. Peters 

Way 

Essential By 2015 £20,000 Local Committee SCC None 

identified 

Transport 

Non 

strategic 

Highway 

network 

IDPF023 

Lyne Crossing Road/Bridge 

Lane/Lyne Lane, Chertsey: 

safety improvements 

Essential By by 2016 £10,000 Runnymede Local 

Cmte have 

allocated funding 

from their ITS 

budget 

Surrey 

County 


None 

identified 

Transport 

Non 

strategic 

Highway 

network 

IDPF024 

Chobham Lane/Burma 

Road, Longcrosscarriageway 

widening at 

roundabout to increase 

Essential 

Timescales for 

work unknown 

Total cost of 

works 

unknown 

Developer funded 

Crest 

Nicholson, 

SCC 

None 

identified 

Page | 173

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

capacity 

Transport 

Non 

strategic 

Highway 

network 

IDPF025 

Chobham lane, Longcross: 

new roundabout access to 

serve DERA North 

development site 

Essential 


work unknown 

Total cost of 

works 

unknown 


Crest 

Nicholson, 

SCC 

None 

identified 

Transport 

Non 

strategic 

Highway 

network 

IDPF026 

Trumps Green Road, 

Wellington Avenue, Virginia 

Water: signalisation of 

existing priority w junction 

Essential 


work unknown 

Total cost of 

works 

unknown 


Crest 

Nicholson, 

SCC 

None 

identified 

Transport 

Non 

strategic 

Highway 

network 

IDPF027 

Staines upon Thames 

Bridge Widening 

Essential Post 2019 Various 

optionsrange 

between 

£8.1 million 

and £12.6 

million 

Unknown SCC None 

identified 

Transport 

Rail 

services 

IDPF028 

Improvements to 

Longcross Station and 

enhanced service levels 

Essential 

Unknown at 

this stagedependent 

on a 

development at 

the former 

DERA site 

being approved 

but post 2016 

Unknown S.106 

contributions 

SWT/ 

developer 

None 

identified 

Transport 

Bus 

services 

IDPF029 

Bus service in the 

Causeway Employment 

Area 

Essential By 2015 £120,000 

per annum 

Developer 

contributions 

Unknown at 

this stage 

None 

identified 

Page | 174

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Transport 

Bus 

services 

IDPF030 

Runnymede yellow bus 

service 

Essential 

Continuing 

existing service 

Cost of 

hiring buses 

2012-2013 

is £354,900 

-Estimated 

cost of 

running 

service at 

least 

£200,000 

annually 

from 2014 

Sponsorship, 

fares and 

developer 

contributions 

cover cost of 

service 

RBC 

Reviewed on 

an annual 

basis 

Transport 

Bus 

services 

IDPF031 

Egham Sustainable 

Transport Package (which 

contains bus priority and 

traffic management 

measures as well as 

cycling and walking 

infrastructure measures 

Essential By 2023 £3.7 million SCC/ S.106/ RBC 

/ Regional 


funding/ LEP 

SCC/ RBC 

None 

identified 

Transport 

Bus 

services 

IDPF032 

Bus stop improvements at 

the Rowtown junction 

Essential By 2015 £61,000 Developer 

contributions 

SCC 

None 

identified 

Transport 

Bus 

services 

IDPF033 

Bus service to support the 


Essential 

Unknown at 

this stagedependent 

on a 


In excess of 

£5 million 

for a period 

of 10 years 


initially, although 

mechanism for 

future 

Crest 

Nicholson, 

SCC, Bus 

operator 

Alternative 

would be to 

divert 

existing bus 

Page | 175

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

the former 

DERA site 

being 

approved, but 

post 2016. 

maintenance of 

service not yet in 

place 

routes to 

serve the 

DERA 

development. 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF034 

Wapshott Road/ Bowes 

Road/ St Pauls Road, 

Hythe- pedestrian and 


Essential By 2017 £125,000 SCC capital fund SCC None 

identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF035 

Langton Way to Crouch 

Oak- pedestrian and 



identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF036 

A30 London Road/St Judes 

Rd- provision of controlled 

pedestrian facilities 

Essential By 2016 £120,000 Unknown SCC None 

identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF037 

Installation of pedestrian 

crossing at Scotland Bridge 

Rd, Addlestone 


identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF038 

Simplemarsh Road/High 

Street, Addlestone: 

pedestrian improvements 

Essential By 2016 £20,000 Unknown Surrey 

County 


None 

identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF039 

Pedestrian crossing at 

Green Lane, Addlestone 

Essential By 2015 £60,000 SCC SCC None 

identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF040 

Pedestrian refuge on A318 

Chertsey Rd/ Green Rd, 

Addlestone 

Essential By 2015 £40,000 Unknown SCC None 

identified 

Page | 176

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF041 

Advanced stop lanes on 

Brighton Road/Crockford 

Park Road 

Essential Unknown Unknown Unknown SCC None 

identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF042 

Advanced stop lanes on 

Brighton Road 


identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF043 

Cycle track-Green Lane/ 

High St to Crouch Oak 

Lane 


identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF044 

Holloway Hill, Chertsey: 

footway improvements 

Essential By 2017 £137,000 SCC capital fund Surrey 

County 


None 

identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF045 

Pedestrian crossing at 

Guildford Street, Chertsey 


identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF046 

Bridge Road/Weir Road 

junction, Chertsey: capacity 

and pedestrian 

improvements 

Essential By 2017 £130,000 SCC capital fund Surrey 

County 


Additional 

private land 

would be 

required for 

this scheme 

to be 

delivered 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF047 

Eastworth Rd, Guildford St/ 

Pycroft Rd, Chertsey – 

cyclist right hand turn lane 


identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF048 

Abbots Way, Pycroft Rd, 

Guildford Street, Chertseyadvanced 

stop lanes 


identified 

Page | 177

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF049 

Guildford Street, Chertseyadditional 

signage 


identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF050 

Drill Hall Rd/ Heriot Rd, 

Chertsey-link between the 

2 roads 


identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF051 

Guildford St, Eastworth Rd 

to Curfew Bell Rd, 

Chertsey, northbound cycle 

track 


identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF052 

Windsor St into Gogmore 

Lane, Chertsey-provision of 

a cycle gap (both 

directions) 


identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF053 

Alwyns Lane, Chertseyallow 

contraflow cycling 


identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF054 

Cycleway improvements at 

the Rowtown junction 

Essential By 2015 Unknown Developer 

contributions 

SCC 

None 

identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF055 

Introduction of controlled 

pedestrian facilities at A30 

London Rd/ Christchurch 

Rd, Virginia Water 

Essential Unknown £80,000 Unknown SCC None 

identified 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF056 

New multi user route along 

the northern boundary of 


Essential 

To accompany 

the 


the former 

DERA site. 

£45,000 No funding in 

place at this time 

SCC/develop 

er 

None 

identified 

Page | 178

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Delivery date 

unclear but 

post 2016 

Transport 

Walking and 

cycling 

IDPF057 

Creation of multi user route 

from A.320 through 

Homewood Park to 

Stonehill Road 

Essential 

To accompany 

the 


the former 

DERA site. 

Delivery date 

unclear but 

post 2016 

£55,000 No funding in 

place at this time 

SCC/RBC 

None 

identified 

Healthcare 

Primary 

Healthcare 

IDPF058 

Provision of a doctor’s 

surgery in the Virginia 

Water area 

Desirable 


6-10 years (in 

line with the 

expected 

delivery of 


the former 

DERA site) 

Unknown 

Clinical 

Commissioning 

Group /developer 

funding 

Clinical 

Commissioni 

ng Group 

Capacity of 

surgeries in 

the Virginia 

Water area 

would 

continue to 

be stretched 

beyond 

capacity 

Healthcare 

Secondary 

Healthcare 

IDPF059 

Implementation of the 

approved outline 

masterplan at St Peters 

Hospital, Chertsey 

Desirable 

Proposed to be 

implemented in 

phases over a 

20 year period 

Not known SAPB and ASPH SAPB and 

ASPH 

None 

identified 

Healthcare 

Private 

healthcare, 

nursing and 

IDPF060 

Redevelopment of Queen 

Elizabeth House in 

Englefield Green to provide 

a 65 bedroom nursing and 

Desirable 

Timescales 

unknown 

Cost 

unknown 

Windsar Care Ltd 

Windsar 

Care Ltd 

None 

identified 

Page | 179

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

resi 

care home 

Healthcare 

Private 

healthcare, 

nursing and 

resi 

IDPF061 

Redevelopment of the 

former Brunel University 

site-to provide (amongst 

other things) 59 extra care 

units 

Desirable 

Timescales 

unknown 

Cost 

unknown 

Orchid 


Limited 

Orchid 


Limited 

None 

identified 

Healthcare 

Private 

healthcare, 

nursing and 

resi 

IDPF062 


Beomonds Independent 

Retirement Living scheme 

in Chertsey (main building 

only, not bungalows) 

Desirable 

Residents 

currently being 

decanted from 

building. To be 

totally empty by 

March 2013. 

Refurbishment 

works will then 

take 

approximately 

12 months with 

the 

accommodation 

being reopened 

around 

March 2014. 

£1.2 million Runnymede 

Borough Council 




None 

identified 

Healthcare 

Private 

healthcare, 

nursing and 

resi 

IDPF063 

Provision of extra care 

facilities at Beomonds and 

Floral House in Chertsey. 

Desirable 

Discussions 

currently 

discussions are 

underway 

between SCC 

and RBC about 

providing extra 

Unknown at 

this stage 

The care package 

would be provided 

by Surrey CC. The 

cost of offices etc, 

any other 

operational 

development 

RBC and 

SCC 

Beomonds is 

too small for 

it to be viable 

to provide 

extra care 

units at this 

scheme 

Page | 180

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

care facilities at 

both schemes 

although 

potential 

timescales 

have not yet 

been 

discussed. 

would be provided 

by RBC. 

alone. 

Hence, if the 

funding 

cannot be 

found to 

secure 

provision at 

both sites, 

the schemes 

will have to 

remain as 

independent 

retirement 

schemes as 

is currently 

the case. 

Utilities 

Waste 

Water 

Treatment 

IDPF064 

Planned works to Chertsey 

Sewerage works 

Desirable Before 2015 £9 million Thames Water Thames 

Water 

Sewerage 

works would 

remain as at 

present 

although this 

could limit 

ability of 

works to 

meet housing 

growth 

Waste 

Waste 

recycling 

IDPF065 

Implementation of 

approved works at Trumps 

Farm, Kitsmead Lane 

Desirable Unknown Unknown Agrivert Ltd Agrivert Ltd Not known 

Page | 181

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Green and 

open spaces 

Suitable 

Alternative 

Natural 

Green 

Spaces 

IDPF066 

SANG to be provided as 

part of the re-development 

of the former DERA site 

Essential 


6-10 years 

Unknown 

Crest Nicholson 


CGNU life 

assurance ltd 

Crest 

Nicholson 

operations 

ltd and 

CGNU life 

assurance ltd 

None 

identified 

Green and 

open spaces 

Suitable 

Alternative 

Natural 

Green 

Spaces 

IDPF067 

Capital works at Timber Hill 

and Chaworth Copse 

Essential 2012/13-2017 £19,500 

over next 5 

years 

RBC RBC The SANG 

would remain 

in current 

condition 

Green and 

open spaces 

Suitable 

Alternative 

Natural 

Green 

Spaces 

IDPF068 

Capital works at St Ann’s 

Hill 

Essential 2012/13-2017 £140,000 

over next 5 

years 


would remain 

in current 

condition 

Green and 

open spaces 

Suitable 

Alternative 

Natural 

Green 

Spaces 

IDPF069 

Capital works at Ottershaw 

Chase 

Essential 2012/13-2017 £20,000 

over next 5 

years 


would remain 

in current 

condition 

Green and 

open spaces 

Suitable 

Alternative 

Natural 

Green 

Spaces 

IDPF070 

Capital works at Ether Hill 

and Queenwood 

Essential 2012/13-2017 £51,000 

over next 5 

years 


would remain 

in current 

condition 

Page | 182

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Green and 

open spaces 

Green and 

open spaces 

Green and 

open spaces 

Green and 

open spaces 

Green and 

open spaces 

Green and 

open spaces 

Suitable 

Alternative 

Natural 

Green 

Spaces 

Suitable 

Alternative 

Natural 

Green 

Spaces 

Suitable 

Alternative 

Natural 

Green 

Spaces 

Suitable 

Alternative 

Natural 

Green 

Spaces 

Suitable 

Alternative 

Natural 

Green 

Spaces 

Suitable 

Alternative 

IDPF071 Capital works at Hare Hill Essential 2012/13-2017 £46,000 

over 5 

years 

IDPF072 

IDPF073 

IDPF074 

IDPF075 

IDPF076 

Capital works at 

Homewood Park 

Promotional leaflets at 

Homewood Park 

Cost of monitoring/visitor 

surveys, photo monitoring 

before and after works and 

updating/development of 

site management plans 

Habitat maintenance 

management works 

Reactive maintenance 

works across all sites 

Essential 2012/13-2017 £88,500 

over 5 

years 


would remain 

in current 

condition 


would remain 

in current 

condition 

Essential 2013-2017 £1,250 RBC RBC None 

identified 

Essential 2013-2017 £64,000 

over next 5 

years 


over next 5 

years 


over 5 

RBC RBC None 

identified 

RBC RBC None 

identified 

RBC RBC None 

identified 

Page | 183

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Natural 

Green 

Spaces 

years 

Green and 

open spaces 

Suitable 

Alternative 

Natural 

Green 

Spaces 

IDPF077 

Cost of endowment over 

plan period 

Essential 

Over entire 

plan 

£699,000 Developers RBC None 

identified 

Green and 

open spaces 

Natural and 

semi natural 

green space 

IDPF078 

Provision of semi natural 

greenspace as part of the 


Desirable 


6-10 years 

Unknown 



CGNU life 

assurance ltd 

Crest 

Nicholson 

operations 

ltd and 

CGNU life 

assurance ltd 

None 

identified 

Green and 

open spaces 

Natural and 

semi natural 

green space 

IDPF079 

Cabrera Trust land-further 

coppicing work along the 

riverside walk 

Desirable 

As soon as 

funds and 

consents in 

place 

£20,000 Possible funding 

through AIR of the 

Cabrera Trust 

RBC 

None 

identified 

Green and 

open spaces 

Natural and 

semi natural 

green space 

IDPF080 

Cabrera Trust land-new 

footbridge on riverside walk 

Desirable 

As soon as 

funds and 

consents in 

place 


via AIR 

RBC 

None 

identified 

Green and 

open spaces 

Natural and 

semi natural 

green space 

IDPF081 

Cabrera Trust land— 

update 

interpretation/information 

boards along riverside walk 

Desirable 

As soon as 

funds available 

£2,500 Cabrera Trust 

may fund part 

RBC 

None 

identified 

Page | 184

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Green and 

open spaces 

Natural and 

semi natural 

green space 

IDPF082 

Cabrera Trust land-review 

and update of the nature 

trail posts and leaflets 

Desirable 

As soon as 


£4,000 Cabrera Trust 

may fund part 

RBC 

None 

identified 

Green and 

open spaces 

Natural and 

semi natural 

green space 

IDPF083 

Cabrera Trust land – re 

routing of boardwalk away 

from eroding bank 

alongside riverside walk 

Desirable 

As soon as 



via AIR 

RBC 

None 

identified 

Green and 

open spaces 

Amenity 

open space 

IDPF084 

Some to be provided as 

part of the development of 


Desirable 


6-10 years 

Unknown 



CGNU life 

assurance ltd 

Crest 

Nicholson 

operations 

ltd and 

CGNU life 

assurance ltd 

None 

identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF085 

Replacement of 5 a side 

football pitches at Egham 


Desirable 2015/2016 £120,000 RBC/Achieve 

Lifestyle 

RBC/Achieve 

Lifestyle 

None 

identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF086 

Improvement of drainage at 

the football pitch at Victory 

Park 

Desirable 

Outside football 

season when 


£75,000 To be identified RBC None 

identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF087 

Replacement of see saw at 

Victory Park which was 

removed in 2009 

Desirable 

As soon as 



identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF088 

Completion of erection of 

boundary fencing along the 

railway footpath at Victory 

Park 

Desirable Unknown £10,000 To be identified RBC None 

identified 

Page | 185

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF089 

Resurfacing works to 

footpaths in Victory Park 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF090 

Resurfacing works to tennis 

courts to include re marking 

out at Victory Park 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF091 

Re-fencing and division of 

tennis courts to include 

provision of kick boards at 

Victory Park 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF092 

Refurbishment/replacement 

of old/out of date play 

equipment at various 

Council owned parks and 

open spaces 

Desirable 

As soon as 

funds become 

available 

£400,000 £100,000 

allocated per year 

over 4 years in 

capital programme 

but capital 

spending currently 

on hold 

RBC 

None 

identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF093 

Outdoor recreation/open 

space provision as part of 

the development at the 


Desirable 


6-10 years 

Unknown 



CGNU life 

assurance ltd 

Crest 

Nicholson 

operations 

ltd and 

CGNU life 

assurance ltd 

None 

identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF094 

Replacement of the park 

welcome sign at 

Heathervale Rec 

Desirable 

As soon as 

funds become 

available 


identified 

Page | 186

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF095 

Resurfacing of footpaths 

(partial) at Heathervale Rec 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF096 

Boundary fence 

replacement (partial or 

whole) at Heathervale Rec 

Desirable Unknown Between 

£20,000 

and 

£250,000 

To be identified RBC None 

identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF097 

Bow top fencing to play 

area at Heathervale Rec 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF098 

Extend/improve sports 

pavilion to accommodate 

children’s nursery and 

changing facilities and staff 

toilet at Heathervale Rec 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF099 

Replacement of park 

welcome sign at Chertsey 

Recreation Ground 

Desirable 

As soon as 

funds become 

available 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF100 

Replacement of 

cricket/football pavilion and 

provision of larger changing 

facilities at Chertsey 

Recreation Ground 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF101 

Bow top fencing for play 

area and paddling pool at 

Chertsey Recreation 


identified 

Page | 187

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Ground 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF102 

Bow top fencing to the play 

area at Abbeyfields and 

The Orchard, Chertsey 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF103 

Provision of a new 

interpretation board at 

Ottershaw Memorial Fields 

Desirable 

As soon as 

funds become 

available 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF104 

Resurfacing of tennis 

courts to include re marking 

out at Ottershaw Memorial 

Fields 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF105 

Re-fencing and division of 

tennis courts at Ottershaw 

Memorial Fields 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF106 

New toilets in bathing 

pavilion at Runnymede 

Pleasure Grounds 

Desirable 

Pending 

decision on use 

of site for 

Magna Cart 

Visitor Centre 

£85,000 RPG budget RBC None 

identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF107 

Re surfacing of pool with 

rubber at Runnymede 

Pleasure Grounds 

Desirable 

Pending 


of site for 

Magna Cart 


£8,000 RPG budget may 

fund part 

RBC 

None 

identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

IDPF108 

Replacement of splash 

pool with water park at 

Desirable 

Pending 



fund part 

RBC 

None 

identified 

Page | 188

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

facilities 

Runnymede Pleasure 

Grounds 

of site for 

Magna Cart 


Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF109 

Addition of play equipment 

for children with disabilities 

at Runnymede Pleasure 

Grounds 

Desirable 

Pending 


of site for 

Magna Cart 



fund part 

RBC 

None 

identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF110 

Expansion of indoor café at 


Grounds 

Desirable 

Pending 


of site for 

Magna Cart 



fund part 

RBC 

None 

identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF111 

Replacement of fencing 

around entrance, play area 

and rides area at 


Grounds 

Desirable 

Pending 


of site for 

Magna Cart 



fund part 

RBC 

None 

identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF112 

Improvements/extension to 

skate park at Aviator Park 

Desirable 

As soon as 

funding and 

consents in 

place 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF113 

Provision of new youth 

equipment and landscaping 

at Bishops Way recreation 

ground 

Desirable 

As soon as 

funding and 

consents in 

place 


identified 

Page | 189

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF114 

Replacement of equipment 

and provision of a new 

enlarged play space at 

Walton Leigh rec 

Desirable 

As soon as 

funding and 

consents in 

place 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF115 

Provision of children’s play 

space at Thorpe Lea open 

space 

Desirable 

Will be 

discussed 

further when 

funding and 

consents in 

place 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF116 

Provision of fencing and 

planting to screen 

boundary with football club 

at Charta Road rec 

Desirable 

As soon as 

funding and 

consents in 

place 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF117 

Improvements to Charta 

Road rec including 

provision of a BMX track 

Desirable 

As soon as 

funding and 

consents in 

place 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF118 

Improvements to Pooley 

Green Rec to include 

MUGA, play area, refurb 

and landscaping 

Desirable 

Will be 

discussed 

further when 

funding and 

consents in 

place 

£320,000 £44,000 in capital 

programme and 

£26,000 planning 

obligations to fund 

play area only 

RBC 

None 

identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF119 

Local repairs to tarmac 

paths (including bridges) at 

Gogmore Park Farm 

Desirable 

As soon as 



identified 

Page | 190

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF120 

Provision of trim trail/fitness 

equipment at Gogmore 

Park Farm 

Desirable 

Will be 

discussed 

further when 

funding and 

consents in 

place 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Outdoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF121 

Complete resurfacing of all 

paths at Gogmore Park 

Farm 

Desirable 

Preferred 

alternative to 

local repair 

(IDPF116) if 

sufficient funds 

become 

available 


identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Indoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF122 

Community facility at the 


Desirable 


6-10 years 

Unknown 

Initially funded by 



CGNU life 

assurance ltd 

Crest 

Nicholson 

operations 

ltd and 

CGNU life 

assurance ltd 

None 

identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Indoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF123 

Provision of a private gym 

at the former DERA site 

Desirable 


6-10 years 

Unknown 




CGNU life 

assurance ltd 

Crest 

Nicholson 

operations 

ltd and 

CGNU life 

assurance ltd 

None 

identified 

Leisure 

facilities 

Indoor 

sports 

IDPF124 

Installation of a swimming 

pool and other additional 

facilities at Egham Leisure 

Desirable Between 2013 

and 2016 

£7 million To be identifiedpotentially 

from 

RBC, Lottery 

RBC 

None 

identified-the 

condition of 

Page | 191

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Leisure 

facilities 

Leisure 

facilities 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

facilities Centre funding, borrowing the current 

leisure centre 

will continue 

to deteriorate 

Indoor 

sports 

facilities 

Indoor 

sports 

facilities 

IDPF125 

IDPF126 

Replacement of fitness 

equipment at Egham 


Replacement of fitness 

equipment at Addlestone 


Police IDPF127 Upgrading/replacement of 

existing cctv cameras in the 


Police IDPF128 CCTV expansion scheme 

in Rowtown 


at Weybridge Industrial 

Estate 


at Ottershaw 


at Addlestone 

Desirable Between 2012 

and 2014 

Desirable Between 2012 

and 2015 

Desirable 

Desirable 

Desirable 

Desirable 

Desirable 

On a rolling 

basis when 

funding 

becomes 

available 

When funding 

becomes 

available 

When funding 

becomes 

available 

When funding 

becomes 

available 

When funding 

becomes 

£78,000 RBC/Achieve 

Lifestyle 

£135,000 RBC/Achieve 

Lifestyle 

RBC/Achieve 

Lifestyle 

RBC/Achieve 

Lifestyle 

None 

identified 

None 

identified 


identified 


identified 


identified 


identified 


identified 

Page | 192

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Moore/Woburn Hill 

roundabout 


at Thorpe Trading Estate 

Police IDPF133 Junior Citizen Personal 

Safety Workbooks 

Desirable 

Desirable 

available 

When funding 

becomes 

available 

When funding 

becomes 

available 

Police IDPF134 MemoCam project Desirable When funding 

becomes 

available 

Police IDPF135 Support for community 

intervention projects such 

as The Biz 

Police IDPF136 Public information 

board/banner 

Police IDPF137 Community Safety Survey, 

next survey due 2015/16 

Desirable 

Desirable 

Desirable 

When funding 

becomes 

available 

When funding 

becomes 

available 

When funding 

becomes 

available 


identified 

£6,000 per 

annum (or 

£78,000 for 

remainder 

of plan) 

£1,500 per 

annum (or 

£19,500 for 

remainder 

of plan) 

£2,000 per 

annum (or 

£26,000 for 

remainder 

of plan) 


identified 


identified 


identified 

£370 To be identified RBC None 

identified 


identified 

Page | 193

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Police IDPF138 Joint Action Group funding, 

for small projects in specific 

locations across the 


Police IDPF139 Section 12/13 orders 

creation of no drinking 

zones to combat alcohol 

related anti social 

behaviour 

Police IDPF140 Section 30 orders costs 

relating to anti social 

behaviour dispersal areas 

Police IDPF141 Freedom 

Programme/Recovery 

Toolkit 

Police IDPF142 Recognition and Recovery 

toolkit 

Desirable 

Desirable 

Desirable 

Desirable 

Desirable 

When funding 

becomes 

available 

When funding 

becomes 

available 

When funding 

becomes 

available 

When funding 

becomes 

available 

When funding 

becomes 

available 

Police IDPF143 Citizenship students Desirable When funding 

becomes 

available 

£4,000 per 

annum (or 

£52,000 for 

remainder 

of plan) 


identified 


identified 


identified 

£2,250 per 

annum (or 

£29,250 for 

remainder 

of plan) 

£2,750 per 

annum (or 

£35,750 for 

remainder 

of plan) 

£1,200 per 

annum (or 

£15,600 for 

remainder 


identified 


identified 


identified 

Page | 194

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Emergency 

services 

Police IDPF144 Youth Engagement 

Scheme 

Ambulance IDPF145 Replacement of Chertsey 

Ambulance Station 

Flooding 

and flood 

defences 

IDPF146 

Lower Thames Flood Risk 

Management Strategy 

Desirable 

When funding 

becomes 

available 

of plan) 

£3,000 per 

annum (or 

£39,000 for 

remainder 

of plan) 

2014/2015 Unknown South East Coast 

Ambulance 

Service NHS 

Foundation Trust 

Desirable Post 2026 £538 million 

(*it is 

considered 

reasonable 

to assume 

that whilst 

the works 

will not 

come 

forward until 

after the 

plan period, 

funding 

from RBC 

will be rqd 

during the 


identified 

Environment 

Agency 

RBC, 

Defra 

South East 

Coast 

Ambulance 

Service NHS 

Foundation 

Trust 

Environment 

Agency, 

RBC, 

Defra 

Ambulance 

station would 

remain in 

current 

condition 

None 

identified 

Page | 195

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

plan period) 

Emergency 

services 

Flooding 

and flood 

defences 

IDPF147 

Refurbishment of the weirs 

along the River Wey 

Desirable Unknown Unknown Environment 

Agency 

Environment 

Agency 

None 

identified 

Community 

services and 

facilities 

Shopping 

facilities 

IDPF148 

Provision of a Waitrose 

food store at Arndale Road 

car park, Church Road, 

Egham (along with an 80 

bedroom hotel) 

Desirable 

Works are to 

commence on 

site on 8 th 

October 2012 

with a 

completion 

being aimed for 

in Spring 2014. 

Cost of 

scheme 

unknown 

Funded by 

developer 

Liberty 

Properties/ 

ASK 

FAVIVAR 

None 

identified 

Community 

services and 

facilities 

Shopping 

facilities 

IDPF149 

Provision of a foodstore 

outlet at Hannover House, 

Station Parade, Virginia 

Water 

Desirable 


implementation 

unknown 

although works 

would need to 

be commenced 

within 3 years 

of the decision 

being issued. 

Cost of 

scheme 

unknown 

Funded by 

developer 

Reef Estates 

Ltd. 

The 

application 

remains 

undetermine 

d at the 

current time. 

If the scheme 

is not 

approved, 

the building 

will remain in 

B1 office use. 

Community 

services and 

facilities 

Shopping 

facilities 

IDPF150 

Redevelopment of council 

site in Addlestone 

Desirable 

Redevelopment 

will come 

forward in 

phases over 

Cost of 

scheme 

unknown 

Bouygues 

Development/RBC 

Bouygues 

Development 

/RBC 

None 

identified 

Page | 196

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Community 

services and 

facilities 

Community 

services and 

facilities 

Community 

services and 

facilities 

Community 

services and 

facilities 

Libraries IDPF151 Continuation of Library 

Direct service 

Libraries IDPF152 Improvement of IT 

provision and assistive 

technology in Runnymede 

libraries 

Libraries IDPF153 Possible provision of an 

additional library to support 

the development at the 


Places of 

worship 

IDPF154 

Extensions to the Surrey 

Muslim Centre, Albert 

Road, Addlestone 

Desirable 

the plan period 

Service already 

operational 

Total cost 

£333,765 

over plan 

periodexisting 

funding 

from SCC 

£216,690 

Desirable Ongoing project Total cost 

£2,160,000 

over plan 

period. 

Funding 

from SCC 

will be 

£1,635,000 

Desirable 

Desirable 


6-10 years 

Under 

construction 

Cost of 

construction 

unknown. 

When 

operational, 

£30,000 per 

annum 

SCC SCC None 

identified 

SCC SCC None 

identified 




CGNU life 

assurance ltd, 

then SCC 

Crest 

Nicholson 

operations 

ltd and 

CGNU life 

assurance 

ltd/SCC 

None 

identified 

Unknown Unknown Unknown None 

identified 

Page | 197

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

Community 

services and 

facilities 

Places of 

worship 

IDPF155 

Erection of new Church 

Centre at St John the 

Baptist Church, High 

Street, Egham 

Desirable 

Unknown at 

this time 


identified 

Community 

services and 

facilities 

Places of 

worship 

IDPF156 

Erection of extensions at 

Christ Church, Christchurch 

Rd, VW 

Desirable 

Unknown at 

this time 


identified 

Community 

services and 

facilities 

Places of 

worship 

IDPF157 

Erection of extensions at St 

Judes United Church, 


Desirable 

Unknown at 

this time 


identified 

Community 

services and 

facilities 

Cemeteries 

and 

crematorium 

IDPF158 

Expansion plans for 

Addlestone Cemetery. 

Desirable 

Originally 

planned for 

2013/14 

although 

project was to 

be financed 

through the 

Council’s 

capital 

programme and 

capital 

spending is 

frozen at the 

current time 

£200,000 RBC RBC In the 

cemetery is 

not extended, 

it will reach 

capacity by 

early 2013. 

Community 

services and 

facilities 

Cemeteries 

and 

crematorium 

IDPF159 

Extension of Thorpe 

Cemetery/provision of new 

cemetery in Thorpe 

Desirable 

When land is 

transferred to 

RBC and funds 

become 

£50,000 RBC RBC Capacity will 

be reached 

over the plan 

period if no 

Page | 198

Type of 



Essential/ 

desirable 

infrastructu 

re 

Indicative 


Phasing 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Lead 

Organisation 

Contingency 

plan 

available 

additional 

provision 

comes 

forward. 

Community 

services and 

facilities 

Cemeteries 

and 

crematorium 

IDPF160 


dilapidated/dangerous 

memorials at Egham 

Churchyard 

Desirable 

As soon as 

funds become 

available 

£4,000 Possibly part 

funded via AIR 

and Egham 

History Society 

RBC 

None 

identified 

(It should be noted that some of the projects/schemes identified do not neatly fit into any of the chapters in the IDP. In such cases, a pragmatic 

‘best fit’ approach has been taken) 

Page | 199

Left Intentionally Blank

Appendix 2- List of Abbreviations 

Term 

ACL 

A+E 

A level 

AMR 

ANGSt 

AQIA 

AQMA 

ASB 

ASPH 

BAP 

BEER 

BMX 

BPF 

BTEC 

CA 

CCRA 

CCTV 

CIL 

CILIP 

CO2 

CofE 

CP 

DCLG 

DCSF 

DDP 

Defra 

DERA 

DF 

DoH 

DfT 

DWP 

EIA 

EiP 

EV 

Description 

Adult Community Learning 

Accident and Emergency 

Advanced level 

Annual Monitoring Report 

Accessible Natural Green Space Standard 

Air Quality Impact Assessment 

Air Quality Management Area 

Anti Social Behaviour 

Ashford and St Peters Hospital Trust 

Biodiversity Action Plan 

Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform 

Bicycle motorcross 

British Property Federation 

Business and Technology Education Council 

Competent Authority 

Climate Change Risk Assessment 

Closed Circuit Television 

Community Infrastructure Levy 

Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals 

Carbon Dioxide 

Church of England 

Corporate Plan 

Department of Communities and Local Government 

Department for Children, Schools and Families 

Draft Delivery Plan 

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

Defence Evaluation Research Agency 

Delivery Framework 

Department of Health 

Department for Transport 

Department for Work and Pensions 

Environmental Impact Assessment 

Examination in Public 

Electric vehicle 

Page | 201

Term 

EY 

FE (either 1, 

2 or 3) 

GiA 

GP 

HRA 

HQ 

IDP 

IMD 

IRL 

IS 

IT 

ITS 

JSNA 

KIPW 

Kt 

LCLIP 

LEP 

LLA 

LNR 

LPA 

LTFRMS 

LSP 

LTP 

LTS 

MLAC 

Ml/d 

MLF 

NE 

NEET 

NHS 

NI 

NNR 

NPPF 

NVF 

ONS 

Description 

Early Years 

1/2/3 Form entry 

Grant in Aid 

General Practitioner 

Habitats Regulations Assessment 

Head Quarters 

Infrastructure Delivery Plan 

Index of Multiple Deprivation 

Independent Retirement Living 

Infrastructure Schedule 

Information Technology 

Integrated Transport Scheme 

Joint Strategic Needs Assessment 

Key Infrastructure Providers Workshop 

Kilotonne 

Local Climate Impact Profile 

Local Economic Partnership 

Local Area Agreement 

Local Nature Reserve 

Local Planning Authority 

Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy 

Local Strategic Partnership 

Local Transport Plan 

Lower Thames Strategy 

Museums, Libraries and Archives Council 

Million litres per day 

Major Landowner Forum 

Natural England 

Not in education, employment or training 

National Health Service 

National Indicator 

National Nature Reserve 

National Planning Policy Framework 

Non viable foetus 

Office for National Statistics 

Page | 202

Term 

PAN 

PAS 

PCSO 

PCT 

PHEV 

PLUS 

PPG 

PPS 

PVI 

PVR 

Q1,2,3 or 4 

QIPP 

RAVS 

RBC 

RDA 

RHUL/RHUL 

SA 

SABP 

SAC 

SANGS 

SCC 

SCS 

SEA 

SECAmb 

SEEDA 

SEP 

SFFA 

SFRA 

SFRS 

SHA 

SHLAA 

SHMA 

SICP 

SNCI 

SOA 

Description 

Published Admission Number 

Planning Advisory Service 

Police Community Support Officer 

Primary Care Trust 

Plug in hybrid electric vehicle 

Public Library User Surveys 

Planning Policy Guidance 

Planning Policy Statement 

Private, voluntary and independent 

Public Value Review 

1st, 2 nd , 3 rd or 4 th quarter of the year 

Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention 

Runnymede Association of Voluntary Services 

Runnymede Borough Council 

Regional Development Agency 

Royal Holloway University of London 

Sustainability Appraisal 

Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust 

Special Area of Conservation 

Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space 

Surrey County Council 

Sustainable Communities Strategy 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

South East Coast Ambulance Service 

South East England Development Agency 

South East Plan 

Super Fast Fibre Access 

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service 

Strategic Health Authority 

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 

Strategic Housing Market Assessment 

Surrey Infrastructure Capacity Project 

Site of Nature Conservation Importance 

Super Output Area 

Page | 203

Term 

SOIS 

SPA 

SRN 

SSSI 

SWML 

SWT 

TASIS 

TBHSPA 

TIA 

TMUK 

TOC 

UBAP 

‘YES’ project 

YMCA 

Description 

School Organisation in Surrey 

Special Protection Area 

Strategic Road Network 

Site of Special Scientific Interest 

South West Mainline 

Surrey Wildlife Trust 

The American School in Switzerland 

Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area 

Transport Impact Assessment 

T Mobile UK 

Train Operating Company 

Urban Biodiversity Action Plan 

Youth engagement scheme project 

Young Men’s Christian Association 

Page | 204

Appendix 3- Glossary of terms 

TERM 

Baseline Data 

Biodiversity 

DCLG 

DESCRIPTION 

The data is used as a reference with which to compare future 

observations or results 

The richness and variety of living things (i.e. plants and 

animals), which exist in a given area, and the habitats that 

support them 

Department of Communities and Local Government 

Development Plan 

Development Plan 

Document 

(DPD) 

Habitats Directive 

Consists of the Regional Spatial Strategy and Development 

Plan Documents contained within the Council’s Local 

Development Framework. Until the LDF is fully in place it will 

also include ‘saved’ policies from the Council’s Local Plan 

A spatial planning document within the Council’s Local 

Development Framework which set out policies for 

development and the use of land. Together with the Regional 

Spatial Strategy they form the development plan for an area. 

They are subject to independent examination 

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural 

habitats and of wild fauna and flora 

Habitats Regulations The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 

Habitats Directive 

Assessment 

(Appropriate 

Assessment) 

Indicator 

Local Development 

Framework 


Local PlanAs 

Natural England 

Objective 

Planning Policy 

Guidance Note 

An assessment made of the implication of plan, programme or 

strategy will have on a Natura 2000 site pursuant to Regulation 

102 and 103 of the Habitats Regulations 

Measure of variables over time, often used to measure 

achievement of objectives 

Consists of a number of documents which together form the 

spatial strategy for development and the use of land 

A Borough-wide planning document setting out policies for 

development and the use of land. It will be replaced by the 

local development framework 

Local Planning Authorities 

From October 2006 English Nature, the environment activities 

of the Rural Development Service and the Countryside 

Agency’s Landscape, Access and Recreation division were 

united in a single body called Natural England 

A statement of what is intended, specifying the desired 

direction of change in trends 

A series of planning notes issued by the Government, setting 

out policy guidance on different aspects of planning 

Page | 205

TERM 

Planning Policy 

Statement 

PPPs 

Regional Planning 

Guidance 

Scoping 

SEA Directive 

SEA Regulations 

South East Plan 

Strategic 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Surrey i 

Sustainability Appraisal 

Sustainable 

Development 

Target 

Trajectory 

Trend 

DESCRIPTION 

A series of notes issued by the Government, setting out policy 

guidance on different aspects of planning. They will replace 

Planning Policy Guidance Notes 

Plans, Policies and Programmes 

Planning Guidance produced at a regional level to tackle 

issues of strategic importance that can be best dealt with over 

a larger area 

The process of deciding the scope and level of detail of a SA, 

including sustainability effects and alternatives which need to 

be considered, the assessment methods to be used, and the 

structure and contents of the SA report 

European Directive 2001/42/EC ‘On the assessment of the 

effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment’ 

The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes 

Regulations 2004 

A plan produced by the South East England Regional 

Assembly 

A tool for integrating environmental considerations into 

decision making by ensuring that significant environmental 

effects of the decision are taken into account 

Surrey-i is a project being carried out on behalf of the Surrey 

Strategic Partnership and led by Surrey County Council. It is 

an online statistical information portal and geographic-data 

warehouse. 

Appraisal of plans, strategies, and proposals to test them 

against broad sustainability objectives 

Development that meets the needs of the present without 

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their 

own needs (Brundtland 1987) 

The overall aim of the objective 

The process of charting the objective over time in relation to 

the target 

Provides a guide to the speed and direction in which indicators 

should move to achieve objectives 

Page | 206

Appendix 4-SANGS works programme over the next 5 years (2013-2017) 

Planned Capital Works 

Site 

Timber Hill and 


Target 

implementatio 

n date 

2012/13 

2013-2017 

St Ann’s Hill 2014 - 2017 

Operation 

Cut back vegetation to open up paths. 

Open up glades to allow more light into woodland, where 

possible around feature trees. 

Maintain deadwood. 

Retain and protect Tilia platyphylos - Large leaved Lime. 

Retain and protect Buxus sempervirens – Box. 

Retain mature trees. 

Commission bat, bird and invertebrate surveys. 

Improve wet/muddy sections of paths. 

Clear young trees from open grass areas. 

Ring bark one or two mature trees and leave standing to 

create deadwood habitats. 

Divert path by pond away from low lying wet area 

Habitat management* 

Provide information board at car park, to include walk taking 

in Ottershaw Chase, Queenwood, Ether Hill etc. 

Open up access to and improve pond. 

Create new stepped path through top part of Chaworth 

Copse. 

Provide directional signage along walking routes. 

Add view indicators at 2 view points 

Repair and improve lookout structures 

Estimated 

cost 

Responsible 

section 

£13,000 Parks 

£6,500 Parks 

£140,000 Parks 

Comments 

Clearance and step 

creation could involve 

volunteers 

Page | 207

Ottershaw Chase 2012/13 

Make a feature of pond in the Dingle 

Provide information boards describing historic features 

Improve and make a feature of Nun’s Well 

Clear vegetation to open up dark paths 

Remove invasive Rhododendron and Laurel and replant 

areas with native trees 

Provide rustic benches and picnic tables. 

Improve wet/muddy paths and repair steps. 

Provide new directional signage along walking routes and 

nature trail 

Deal with hillside erosion at Dingle lookout 


Look to gain public access to open grass area by reservoir 


Maintain mature trees. 

Selectively thin younger trees and clear scrub around 

specimen/mature trees. 


Widen and improve main access points for pushchairs 

access. 



Improve wet/muddy sections of paths 

Cut back vegetation to allow more light onto paths 

Open up glades and open areas to allow more light into 

woodland, if possible around feature tree 

Install rustic seats at various points along path network. 

Install way markers/sign posts. 

£14,000 Parks 

Page | 208

Ether Hill and 

Queenwood 

2013 - 2014 

2012/13 

2013-2017 

Create dead wood piles with logs and brash wood. 

Provide welcome/interpretation boards at accesses. 

Consider utilising circular brick structure 

Improve surface of pedestrian routes. 

Open up viewpoint at top of hill over golf course. 

Clear/thin trees in northern part of Queenwood, leaving 

linkages with surrounding woodland habitats. 

Retain mature trees. 



Create glades and open areas to allow more light into 

woodland. 

Create dead wood piles with logs and brash wood. 

Remove vegetation to widen paths and allow more light in. 

Provide directional signage along walking routes 

Install rustic seats at various points along path network. 

Commission bat, bird and invertebrate surveys 

Remove invasive vegetation. 

Investigate and protect trees nearing veteran status 

Consider clear felling and scraping pine litter to encourage 

heath regeneration in area close to pond. 

Consider creating east-west glade through Queenwood 

linking to new area of heathland 

Provide information board about Ether Hill and Queenwood at 

Ottershaw Memorial Field car park. 

Reinstate pond. 

Provide rustic benches 

£6,000 Parks 

£21,000 Parks 

£30,000 Parks 

Page | 209

Hare Hill 2013 -2017 

2013/14 

Homewood Park 

2014-2017 

Provide information boards. 

Deal with surface water on main path to Chobham Rd access 

Enhance pond/wet area to create central feature 

Maintain dead wood 

Create dead wood piles with logs and brash wood 

Improve wet/muddy sections of paths – (boardwalks & small 

bridges) 

Consider provision of limited car parking 

Provide information boards 

Provide directional signage along walking routes 

Remove vegetation to widen paths and allow more light in 

Ring bark one or two sycamore trees and leave standing to 


Selectively thin younger trees 

Create glades and open areas to allow more light into 

woodland. 

Provide rustic benches 

Remove encroaching scrub from grass areas 

Make a feature of earth banks on old pottery track. 

Make feature of oldest oak tree 


Commission Phase 1 Habitat and Access surveys 


Open up glades in woodland around mature specimen trees 

Clear invasive Rhododendron 

Improve nature trail 

£46,000 Parks 

£2,000 Parks 

£86,500 Parks 

Page | 210

Homewood Park 

Resurface footpaths and other routes 

Repair/replace bridges 

Programme of other work to be developed from above 

surveys 

2013-2017 Promotional leaflets £1,250 P&I 

2013-2017 Monitoring/visitor surveys £50,000 P&I/DC 

All sites 

2013-2017 Photo monitor before during and after work £2,000 Parks 

2013-2017 Update existing or develop new Site Management Plans £12,000 Parks 

Totals 2013-2017 £430,250 

Page | 211

Planned Maintenance 2014-2017 

(please note that the habitat maintenance works in this table differ from those in the capital works table as the habitat management under capital work is the 

initial phase of works to bring the sites up to a reasonable standard. The planned maintenance works detailed in the table below would be ongoing works of a 

similar nature in subsequent years) 

Site 

Operation 

Estimated 

Annual cost 

Responsible 

section 

Comments 

Timber Hill and 


Habitat 

management* 

£3,500 Parks 

St Ann’s Hill 

Habitat 

management* 

£5,000 Parks 

Queenwood 

Habitat 

management* 

£3,000 Parks 

Hare Hill 

Habitat 

management* 

£2,500 Parks 

Homewood Park 

Habitat 

management* 

£3,000 Parks 

Ottershaw Chase 

Habitat 

management* 

£3,500 Parks 

Total estimated 

annual cost 

£20,500 

Total estimated five 

year costs 

£102,500 

* Habitat management will vary from site to site but will be based on recommendations from the Phase 1 and other surveys completed. Generally it 

will include ongoing invasive vegetation management, tree management (thinning, coppicing etc.), creation of habitats (log piles, bird/bat boxes) and 

tree planting. 

Page | 212

Reactive Maintenance 2013-2017 

Site 

Operation 

Estimated 

Annual cost 

Responsible 

section 

Comments 

All sites 

Responsive tree 

work, litter and fly 

tipping removal, 

unplanned 

repairs 

£8,000 Parks 

Total estimated five 

year costs 

£40,000 

Page | 213

All enquiries about this paper should be directed to: 

Runnymede Borough Council 

Technical Services 

The Civic Centre 

Station Road 

Addlestone 

Surrey KT15 2AH 

Tel 12 01932 838383 

Further copies of this publication can be obtained from the above address, 

or email: iau@runnymede.gov.uk 

www.runnymede.gov.uk 

2013

Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Feb 2013) - Runnymede Borough Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?