Front page July archive
A Government Planning Inspector has finished his hearings into whether there should be building on the Green Belt. Mr David Vickery will now decide if the Council's development plan, known as the Tandridge Core Strategy, should be accepted or rejected. He will give his verdict to the Council on 12th September. If the Core Strategy is rejected that will significantly improve the prospects for developers who wish to build on the Green Belt and pave the way for 650 houses on 2 Green Belt fields in Oxted. A third option is that the Inspector may accept the plan but order an "early review", primarily so that the Council can provide greater certainty as to the identification of housing sites for the later years of its plan. It is not clear how early that review might be. Whatever the Inspector decides is binding on the Council.
There were 3 main issues at the hearings.
1) Did the council have enough development sites for new housing during years 6-11 of the plan without having to release Green Belt land. (It was accepted that there is no problem with the first 5 years) The Council has drawn up a robust and detailed submission for the Inspector which shows that all the sites on its list have a reasonable prospect of development in the right time frame and that the yield from them will more than meet the housing target required, this without even considering any surplus from previous years completions (see point 2 below).
2) Residuals - that is whether the development surplus that Tandridge has built up since 2006 can be carried forward and used to offset some of the target for new building in the years ahead, bearing in mind the regional requirement covers the period between 2006 and 2026. Again, the Council has submitted a paper justifying the inclusion of the surplus. Its approach was given extra force by comments on 30th June from the South East England Regional Assembly confirming that Tandridge was right to be counting the surplus. The Assembly said that if allowance was not made for the surplus there could be serious problems with infrastructure.
3) Affordable housing. The Council was clear that its new strategy and revised policy thresholds would more than deliver the target of 50 affordable units per year. Developers disagreed. They are pressing for large Green Belt sites to be used with a high percentage of affordable houses.
Oxted & Limpsfield Residents were represented at all of the Core Strategy hearings and fully supported the Council's case and its efforts to balance housing provision with protecting the Green Belt.
The residents' barrister, Carine Patry Hoskins, pointed out that protecting the Green Belt and providing affordable housing are not incompatible and that the answer is a balance. She said that the Government recognises this in the housing targets that it has set for all local authorities. Tandridge's is the second lowest in the whole of the South East for the very reason that it is a Green Belt authority where huge development is not appropriate.
In addition, she expressed the residents' concern that if the Core Strategy were to be rejected it would be a huge waste of taxpayers money with the loss of four years of work by the Council.
So far 8 English local authorities have had their Core Strategies rejected as "unsound". (Just 22 have been passed) Millions of pounds of taxpayers money have been wasted as the Councils are told to start again.
During the hearings the Council was attacked by one developer after another. Village Developments, Asprey Homes, the Home Builders Federation, White and Sons, Arena Leisure, are all trying to get the Council's Core Strategy declared unsound so that building can take place on the Green Belt.
We would hope that notice will be taken of comments by the Communities Secretary, Hazel Blears. She told Channel 4 News: "I've been trying to free up space at local level so that local councils can genuinely do what local people want because, if we don't do that, people increasingly see the political system as irrelevant and not addressing their concerns, so I think anybody will tell you this last year has been quite a significant time for freeing up local government to get on to the public's agenda and that's exactly what I mean to do"
When Tandridge residents were asked by the Council what their priorities were, the preservation of the Green Belt ranked as number One.
Hundreds of residents have written in from all over Tandridge appealing to Mr Vickery to save the Green Belt and supporting the Core Strategy which demonstrates that building on the Green Belt is not necessary.
788 letters and emails have been sent in.
522 of these are heartfelt pleas to save the 2 Green Belt fields in Oxted where developers want to build 650 houses.
To read some comments from the letters click here
The facts are:
The Council has done everything in its power to abide by constantly changing Government guidelines and has come up with a development plan that meets the guidelines, more than meets the housing targets it has been given, addresses the main concerns of Tandridge residents and proves that it does not need to build on the Green Belt.
It is one of the first local authorities in Surrey to bring forward its Core Strategy yet has been criticised by developers for doing so without what's called a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. ( an assessment of potential development sites) It has conducted studies which provide this information and, had it held up the Core Strategy process to prepare a SHLAA, it would have wasted thousands of pounds of taxpayers money.
Indeed, the latest version of PPS12 (Government guidance) that was published recently reiterates the Government's previous guidance that Core Strategies should be brought forward promptly. This is what Tandridge has sought to achieve. If it had delayed publication of its Core Strategy to provide sufficient time to carry out a SHLAA (for which there is no legal requirement in relation to Core Strategies) then it would have been unable to comply with the Government's guidance.
Below is the full list of sites put forward by developers who are trying to get the Core Strategy declared "unsound" or changed so that the Green Belt is up for grabs.
Site 1 is the field (known as Stoneyfield) and woodland next to St Mary's Church. Site 2 is the field and bluebell wood by St Mary's School. Surveyors have been marking out these fields in preparation for the housing developments. These fields are fertile pieces of agricultural land and of great landscape value. To see the evidence click here
Site List:
1 Village Developments: Land adjacent to graveyard & St Mary's Church, Barrow Green Road, Oxted
Residential. 400 houses To see the plan click here
2 Village Developments: Land adjacent to St Mary's School, Chichele Road & Laverock School, Bluehouse Lane, Oxted
Residential. 250 houses To see the plan click here
3 Mr Keyte: Essendene Park, off Whyteleafe Road, Caterham
Residential
4 Mr Samarasekara: North west end Hillbury Road, Warlingham (267 and land adjacent)
Residential
5a Clifford W & R C Shrimplin: Redhill Aerodrome, South Nutfield.
Suggests a new settlement at Redhill Aerodrome would be a preferable strategy.
5b Jim Cobbe:Redhill Aerodrome, South Nutfield
Location for strategic housing and employment
6 Metropolis Planning and Design: Land north of Felbridge Hotel,Felbridge
Extra Care Housing
7 Mr D Post: Land opposite Doves Barn Nursery and 103-109 Copthorne Road Felbridge
Residential
8 Cophall Farm: Cophall Farm, Effingham Road, Copthorne
Major Developed Site in the Green Belt (commercial use)
9 Asprey Homes: Occasionally Yours Nursery, Lingfield Common Road, Lingfield.
Residential
10 Stephen Smith:The former Bays Nursery,Godstone Road, Lingfield
Suggests a green belt boundary review would resolve the situation with regard to the site
11 Mr Raison: Land at Willow Cottage, Newchapel Road, Lingfield
Refers to site on edge of Lingfield as boundary anomaly
12 Arena Leisure: Lingfield Park Racecourse and surrounding land
Lingfield should be designated as Broad Location for development, reference to 125 acres of surplus
land.
To read the latest Core Strategy papers see this Council web page:click here
The Key Points
* The council has put together a plan, the Core Strategy, which does not involve building on Green Belt. We support this plan.
* We want this plan to be accepted by the Inspector, without any changes, in order to protect the Green Belt. The Core Strategy in our opinion is sound.
* We do not want the Inspector to say that the council has to change the Core Strategy by naming Green Belt fields to build upon. This is what the developers want (650 houses on Green Belt) and so, apparently, does the Government. We want our Core Strategy left alone because that way our Green Belt remains protected.
If the plan were to be rejected that would be quite against the publicly expressed views of local people, but quite in line with pressure from the unelected body "The Government Office for the South East"
Village Developments' recent article in the County Border News stated:
"Reading between the lines Inspector Vickery is giving the District Council clear indications that he thinks the whole strategy is unsound....."
"We will prove that this core strategy is unsound and eventually we will build our affordable houses. It is only a matter of time."
Sign the Save the Green Belt petition NOW by clicking the button on the left.