Annual Report & AGM minutes 12th May

ANNUAL REPORT OXTED & LIMPSFIELD RESIDENTS GROUP
MAY 2009 - MAY 2010

This is the first annual report of the Oxted & Limpsfield Residents Group which was formally constituted on 15th May 2009. It operated informally during 2008 to try to protect the district's Green Belt by taking part in the examination of Tandridge District Council's local development plan (Core Strategy) by a government Planning Inspector. The Group employed planning experts and a barrister to support the Council's Plan and we were delighted when the Core Strategy was approved in September 2008.

However, since then the Group has had a challenging time trying to protect the Green Belt and the environment generally and to avoid unnecessary back garden development.

The Group is a non-political voluntary organisation. At present there are more than 850 members, largely from Oxted and Limpsfield, but also from other parts of northern Tandridge, that is: Caterham, Godstone, Warlingham, Whyteleafe and Nutfield. The majority keep in touch by email but for those who do not have email, or prefer not to use it, we send out information by post. The Group, which currently has a committee of 12, is solely concerned with planning matters.

Green Belt

The Core Strategy made sure that the overall policy for development in Tandridge did not rely on Green Belt sites to fulfil the housing targets imposed by central government. But that wasn't the end of the process. The Council then began the next stage - drawing up 'The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.' (SHLAA) Its aim is to identify all the potential housing land in the district, how much housing can go on each site and when that site can be developed. The Council set up a Panel to oversee this and the residents group is a member of it, along with a number of developers, Parish Councils, Nutfield Conservation Society and the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

Originally it was intended to include Green Belt sites in the initial assessment. These included the fields at the end of Wheeler Avenue and Chichele Road in Oxted which were targeted at the time of the Core Strategy examination when a developer put forward detailed plans to build 650 houses on them.

Once again the residents group took planning and legal advice and was told that the Green Belt sites should not be included automatically at the start of the process. We argued that they should be taken out and this was eventually agreed by the SHLAA Panel. As a result, all the Green Belt sites, including those adjacent to the built up areas, will not be assessed initially but will be held on a list. This list of sites will only be considered if, at the end of the process, there are not enough sites within the built up areas to meet the Council's housing requirement as set down by the government. At present, Tandridge is required to provide 2,500 homes over the period 2006 to 2026 (average 125 per year)

It is now up to the Council to carry out a thorough and careful investigation which will ensure that all suitable sites in the built up areas are identified, brought forward and used to their full development potential. The residents group has been doing, and will continue to do, all it can to assist with this and to demonstrate that it is not necessary to build on the Green Belt.

Back Garden Development

Last June, while taking part in the SHLAA panel, the residents group was told that the Core Strategy Policy CSP3, which restricts uncontrolled back garden development, was no longer operating. When the Core Strategy was approved this Policy was widely welcomed by members, particularly in Caterham, who have suffered an onslaught from back garden building because current legislation categorises back gardens as previously developed 'brownfield' land and therefore suitable for development.

During the last few years the numbers of homes built in Tandridge has far outstripped the government requirement. For example, for the period 1 April 2006 to 30 September 2009, 1,110 homes were added to the district's total housing stock which meant that within just three and a half years, 44% of the required 20 year supply (2,500) had been achieved.

It was to try to regulate this large oversupply that Policy CSP3 was brought in; it was designed to control back garden building which was not needed to meet the housing target and was causing a great deal of concern to residents.

The Policy only operates when the Council's supply of future housing sites for the next five years shows a surplus of more than 20%. (this figure is calculated by the Council every April) In April 2009 the Council's figures showed a surplus of just 8%. The residents group and others queried this and, as a result, the Council agreed to carry out a review. That review confirmed a surplus of 25% and CSP3 was reinstated on 1 December 2009.

We are currently awaiting the outcome of the April 2010 review. The Group understands that a number of large sites which were previously on hold, are now going ahead. This means there should be a much bigger surplus and we hope, therefore, that the Council will continue to operate CSP3 for the coming year.

For info, Policy CSP3 says that in order to manage the delivery of housing, if the surplus is more than 20%, the Council will not permit the development of residential garden land where there is a net gain of 5 units and above or where the site is larger than 0.2 hectares (subject to a few exceptions) Where there is a net gain of up to 4 units, it's important to check the site size as it may be possible to argue that the proposal should be turned down because the site is too large.

Oxted Sandpit/Chalkpit and Mercers Farm, Nutfield Marsh

At the end of last year the Group became aware of the contents of Surrey County Council's 'Minerals Plan' and its proposals for massive new development at Oxted Sandpit. The plan is to extend the Sandpit for soft sand extraction and to make it into an aggregates recycling centre for construction and development waste. This waste would be brought in by HGV where it would either be dumped as landfill, or recycled and driven away again - by HGV.

This is in addition to the huge numbers of lorries involved in the existing Chalkpit operation, less than a mile away. That's not even referred to in the Plan despite all the protests, petitions and evidence of major road safety risks and major environmental damage that local people have presented to SCC over the past two years. No attempt is made to resolve the existing problems or to address the cumulative impact on the community and the environment of operating the two sites together.

The residents group has sent in a 14 page objection to Surrey County Council detailing why its proposals break planning law and why the Council is wrong to put them forward without properly assessing and taking account of the existing problems. The Group publicised the issue in the local media, the Sunday Telegraph and The Politics Show on BBC One. It is planning further publicity in the run up to the Minerals Plan examination this summer.

The Plan also targets Mercers Farm in Nutfield. This site is totally unsuited for access by large numbers of HGVs. It is in the Green Belt, is a Site of Nature Conservation Importance, and is important for great crested newts and over-wintering lapwings - their habitat would be threatened if the proposal goes ahead.

There are other nearby sites too and residents in Nutfield, Bletchingley and Godstone have also been protesting about environmental destruction. They fear villages and rural roads will be choked with heavy lorries. The sites are all in the Green Belt and some are in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The next stage is for the Minerals Plan to be examined by a government Planning Inspector. This is expected to happen during the summer. The Group intends to take part with the aim of persuading the Inspector that the Plan is seriously flawed and should be rejected as 'unsound'.

The Future

The residents group originally started because of a sudden and immediate danger to the Green Belt from developers which also threatened to swamp the district's infrastructure.

It's become clear that there is a continuing need to try to protect the district from excessive and damaging development. The Group's aim is to do that, for the time being at least. This part of the world, being so close to London, is under the most tremendous development pressure. In neighbouring Reigate and Banstead, for example, the Council has just been forced to withdraw its Core Strategy or face it being thrown out by the Planning Inspector who examined it. During that examination the Green Belt came under ferocious attack from developers and is now at severe risk. Even when the Core Strategy is approved, as in Tandridge, the pressure continues.

Recently, members have expressed concern about parking problems and the need for a more effective parking strategy for the district. Of particular concern is the heavily congested Chichele Road where the problems spill over into Barrow Green Road adding to the danger from the quarry lorries.

As a result of recent publicity the Group was asked to join the National Organisation of Residents Associations and has become a member.

So far we have avoided having to collect membership subscriptions but did ask for voluntary contributions at the time of the Core Strategy which gave us sufficient funds to operate for the foreseeable future. If there is a future emergency which requires additional funds, we may then ask for contributions.

If you have any queries or suggestions about matters in this report or other planning issues that you want to raise, please do get in touch.

Many thanks indeed for your support.

Minutes of Oxted & Limpsfield Residents Group (OLRG) AGM held 12 May 2010

There were 33 apologies for absence and a number of messages welcoming the annual report which had been sent out with the AGM notice. There were no complaints. There were 2 kind offers of financial assistance but at present OLRG is still funded by contributions made in 2008 at the time of the Core Strategy.

Matters arising from annual report:

Green Belt/Back Gardens

It was noted that the Council is proceeding with the process of allocating sites for housing development in Tandridge and that most of the large sites, which had been on hold because of the economic downturn, are now going ahead. This means there should be no problem demonstrating a robust 5 year housing supply for the district, as currently required by the government, which does not include Green Belt sites. Moreover, the supply should considerably exceed the government target. Therefore Policy CSP3, which regulates back garden development, should hopefully stay in place.

There was some discussion of CSP3. This policy had been dropped by the Council last June and OLRG then successfully campaigned to have it put back, demonstrating that there was a larger housing surplus than the Council had originally calculated. It was noted that the amount of house building in Tandridge had been way ahead of what the government required. 44% of the 20 year total had been built in the three and a half years from 1 April 2006 - 30 September 2009 (that is 1,110 homes out of a target of 2,500)

A lot of the correspondence received by OLRG in the last year has concerned back garden development. It has come from members in Caterham, Warlingham, Oxted and Nutfield. OLRG has made representations on a number of these matters. The Group was particularly disappointed that a back garden development in Caterham had been approved on Appeal soon after Policy CSP3 was dropped and before the Group could get it reinstated.

Sandpit/Chalkpit Lorries and Surrey Minerals Plan

The Group is very grateful to members Mr & Mrs Al Fayed for their assistance and support for efforts to tackle this problem - in particular the provision of legal help to enable OLRG to object to the Surrey Minerals Plan and to take part in its examination by a Planning Inspector later in the year. OLRG aims to prove that the Plan should be rejected as 'unsound' and not legally compliant. Without this assistance OLRG would have found it almost impossible to make its objections known as the process is ludicrously time consuming and complicated. Mr Al Fayed has also been very helpful in agreeing to join in the Group's publicity campaign.

OLRG has been in recent correspondence with Surrey County Council and has been told there has been a delay in submitting the Plan to the Secretary of State. SCC say this is because it is has taken longer than expected to deal with the representations. They expect to issue an update on progress later this month. It now seems unlikely that the examination will be held in June/July as SCC had suggested.

Parking

OLRG has recently received correspondence regarding parking problems in Chichele Road,Oxted. Towergate and Waitrose staff are using Chichele Road as free all day parking turning it into a single lane road. A lack of local business parking was highlighted as a major issue in Oxted. Johnsdale has become business only parking, but this is not enough for the 300+ staff now employed by Towergate and Waitrose.
Parents collecting children from St Marys school are unable to park on Chichele road and the road is regularly gridlocked when the school buses attempt to get down what is now a single track road. Cars and buses mount the pavements daily endangering the school children walking home.
It was noted that Councillors had said they believed that it was commuters who parked in Chichele Road and so the current restrictions of no parking before 9.30 were adequate. However Towergate have changed their working hours to a 9.30 start to fit in with the parking restrictions. Some residents are renting their drives to Towergate staff at £5 a day.
One member has suggested double yellow lines with parking spaces. This would ensure passing spaces for cars, buses, emergency vehicles etc.
Another member suggested no parking in the morning. This would allow parents to park to collect their children from school in the afternoon.
The suggestion of parking permits was not favourably received.
Surrey County Council and Tandridge District Council blame each other for the lack of controlled parking regulations. TDC have to find additional parking spaces.
Gordons Way has the same parking issues and the spillover exacerbates the quarry lorry problems in Barrow Green Road. There is also inappropriate parking in Church Lane.
Several surrounding villages use Oxted as a commuter station and are using the residential roads for parking.
There was discussion of whether a park and ride scheme might work for Oxted.
It was suggested that the Group should contact Towergate with a view to discussing greener ways for their employees to get to work or ask Surrey County Council to approach them to try to promote a Green Travel Plan which could be implemented to reduce the parking demands.

Oxted gas holder

The parking problem led to discussion of the gas holder and prospects for its removal and the site's redevelopment. Apparently, in October 2008, a scheme nearly got off the ground but stalled presumably because of the downturn. If the gas holder cannot be redeveloped for housing, can the site be used for parking? We need a multi storey car park to support local business parking.
It is always said that the costs of contamination prohibit development but a number of people were not convinced by this and felt the costs might be over-estimated.
It was agreed that OLRG would investigate the real costs of decontaminating the site, preparatory to contacting the owners.

Any other business

It was said that Oxted needs a facelift. It's looking unloved and drab. Litter and a lack of greenery and flowers is making it a poor relative to Limpsfield, Caterham and Westerham. No money appears to have been spent on upgrading it in last 30 years. Council needs to take responsibility to make residents proud to live in Oxted. Needs more trees, planting, seating and more litter picking. Limpsfield is a great example of what can be achieved. Caterham has recently had a massive make over and it looks great. Oxted needs the same. What about a farmers market? Why can't businesses sponsor the roundabout and make it more attractive instead of a pile of weeds? TDC have said no signage on roundabouts. Other councils do have signage.

A lot of planning consultations/messages are now being received and to avoid endless emails to members it was proposed that a number of these should be put on the website for members to view and comment. OLRG needs to be careful not to campaign on too many minor issues as may lose support of members when a big issue needs their action.