A derelict site in Ewell is to become a 70-bed care home. The Organ Inn was known to any one of Epsom and Ewell driving to London. Situated prominently on the Ewell-By-Pass at the London Road junction. It last functioned as Jim Thompsons with Thai Cuisine and was also known as The Organ and Dragon. The building was demolished and the ground left derelict for years. Thursday 6th October Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Planning Committee granted full permission for the construction of a 70-room retirement care home of four storeys and a basement. Councillor Nigel Colin (RA College Ward) described the site at present as “a blot on the landscape.”

There were two objections registered that were dismissed by the Councillors in the face of a strong application supported by planning officers. The construction of the home will contribute 38 units to the housing targets of the Borough of @ 579 per annum.

A Planning Need Assessment submitted by the applicant from Carterwood, a specialist in health and social care, indicated that there is a net need for 1279 en-suite wetroom bedrooms in the market catchment area (4 miles from the Application Site) and 540 in Epsom and Ewell. In terms of ‘specialist dementia’ care, the Assessment sets out that there is a net need for 529 en-suite wetroom beds in the market catchment area and a net need for 226 en-suite wetroom beds in Epsom and Ewell.

The Council officers reported that the developer applicant does not have experience in care-home provision. Surrey County Council Adult Social Care commented on the application: ” While the Applicant is an organisation with no history of operating care homes itself, there is no reference to a care provider working in partnership with the organisation in the application. There is therefore very little indication of what type of care will be delivered on Site, whether the care home will operate with or without nursing care provision, and no description of exactly how the particular development would benefit local residents or the joint health and social care system. The application therefore suffers by comparison with others, which provide details of future operational plans. Having said this, regrettably, I cannot find anything in the local planning policies which requires clarity on who will operate any future care development, nor any requirement for an operator statement alongside other statements in the application.”

Cllr Alex Coley (RA Ruxley Ward) questioned this inexperience and was advised by officers that the developer will contract with a specialist service provider.

Various conditions must be met by the developer, 65 London Road Limited, a private company under the sole directorship of Kirpal Singh. A company that has declared over £3 million in net assets in its last and only accounts ending 31st March 2021 – in which it declared a trading loss of £2400.

The Council require the company to enter an agreement (known as a section 106) to contribute money to the improvement of bus infrastructure at both the A24 northside bus stop and A24 southside, including shelters and real time passenger information; a Push button controlled pedestrian crossing facilities on London Road and a 3-metre-wide footpath on both the London Road and Ewell Bypass frontages of the Application Site, to be dedicated as public highway.

HOBBLEDOWN NOBBLEDOWN?

This popular leisure destination for a family day out on Horton Lane Epsom had asked the Planning Committee for various permits. Installation of new restroom facilities, new boundary fencing and relocation of entrance gates, new play structures etc.

Tempers were tested somewhat when Cllr Coley stated a flood risk assessment was necessary before proceeding further. Planning officers disagreed. Cllr Kate Chinn (Lab Court Ward) suggested that if the contention had been raised before the meeting the public row could have been avoided. Cllr Steven McCormick (RA Woodcote) brought deliberations to an inconclusive end my proposing a deferment of all of Hobbledown’s requests. A motion passed by all Councillors bar three.

Councillors have been warned to “be under no illusions” that a plan for 70 homes at Headley Court could be progressed as they rejected an application for 59 homes on the same site. A long history of applications on the green belt site is set to continue, with various parts of it currently under appeal and the district council’s local plan currently under examination.

Mole Valley District Council’s development management committee meeting on Wednesday (October 6) refused the application by 14 votes to zero, with four abstentions, in line with the officers’ recommendations. After outline permission was granted in December 2020 for up to 70 homes on the site, it could now see a previous application for 70 homes approved, after an appeal was lodged with government inspectors.

The site, former Ministry of Defence land, is located over the road from the NHS Seacole Centre, used as a temporary hospital during the coronavirus pandemic and as a temporary mortuary.

Developers warned during the meeting that if councillors rejected the scheme for 59 homes then the 70 home plan would go ahead if granted on appeal, despite having previously offered to take the larger plans off the table.
Tony Williamson, representing Angle Property, said: “Be under no illusion, if this application is refused tonight, and approval is granted by the planning inspectorate then the 70 unit scheme will be implemented and progressed. The concessions offered in this application will be lost. In that scenario, I’m sure the local residents will not be thanking this committee.”

The previous application, deferred from a November 2021 meeting had been appealed by the developer for non-determination. Subsequently, a June meeting of the development management committee concluded it would have refused the application, had it not been sent to central government for a decision.

The latest refused plans included three two-bedroom, 28 three-bedroom, 17 four-bedroom and 11 five-bedroom homes, with eight of them being affordable. Officers described the housing mix as “unacceptable” because a three-bed home sold under shared ownership “would not prove attractive due to affordability issues”. The district council’s local plan, currently undergoing inspection at government level, identifies the Headley Court site as a whole for 120 homes.

There is still an appeal on the east part of the site for 14 senior living homes in the listed building there and redevelopment of the rest of the site for 100 new-build senior living homes. Headley Parish Councillor Jane Pickard said the said the village was at risk of doubling in size, and that the new plans had seen a shift away from smaller homes. She added: “We are prepared for a major increase in the size of our community, but want it to be done in a way which enhances rather than damages the semi rural character in the green belt.”

Cllr Tim Hall said he knew of at least three planning applications around Headley Court and Headley road, “all of which have serious transport implications”. He said: “This needs to be linked together. Because Headley Road, as has been said previously by the residents, is not a great highway. It’s a rural Surrey lane, in the nicest possible way.”

Wisley Airfield town plan: We report on a Surrey housing application that illuminates issues all local boroughs face today [Ed.] : To paraphrase from a popular TV show: “Wrong location, wrong location, wrong location.” That’s the message from campaigners against plans for 1,700 homes on the former Wisley Airfield. They say traffic concerns, an abundance of wildlife and trying to fit an urban development in a rural area are all reasons for the plans not to go ahead.

The former airfield is located alongside the A3 and is just over a mile from junction 10 with the M25, where another set of controversial works started this month. It was allocated as a new settlement in Guildford Borough Council’s local plan for around 2,000 homes, shops and offices. An outline planning application was submitted to the borough council by Taylor Wimpey for the first 1,700 in the summer, and residents have until Monday (October 3) to comment on the plans.

There are so far 168 objections to the outline plans on the borough council’s planning portal and comments received after the deadline will ordinarily also be considered. On a walk around the current site, which was used as an airfield from 1942 until 1972 and still has a tarmac landing strip in the middle, campaigner Chris Campbell, from Villages against Wisley New Town, told the LDRS he did not believe a new town should be built there. “Wrong location, wrong location, wrong location,” he said. “Location is everything and as you can see, this is not the location for a town.”

Around the old runway, the site is used as farmland, with two tractors out on the fields on the day of our visit.
We also see several kites in the air, and pass “Snakes Field”, so-called, the campaigners tell me, because there are grass snakes, slow worms and amphibians living there. They’ve also seen badgers and owls on and around the site, and Mr Campbell raises concerns particularly about the impact of an increase in the number of dogs walking through woodland, a special protection area, between the site and the A3.

He said the “last thing” that’s needed for the ground nesting birds on the site, including the Dartford warbler, night jar and woodlark, would be the additional 400 dogs that could come with the new homes.

A suitable alternative natural green space (SANG) will be allocated on the site to “avoid adverse effects on the integrity” of the special protection area according to the borough council’s local plan. Taylor Wimpey documents state that the SANG provision is a “bespoke provision agreed with Natural England” and that more than half of the site will be accessible open space, as well as a 20 per cent biodiversity net gain on the site.

Frances Porter, chair of Ockham and Hatchford Residents’ Association, walks across the former airfield every day with her dogs. She claimed she was told at a meeting with Taylor Wimpey representatives that traffic calming measures around the new town were designed to “frustrate” motorists out of their cars. But she doesn’t think that people living in the town will be pushed out of their cars. “People haven’t got anywhere else to go,” she said. “You’re going to need a car; you can’t get the bus.”

The borough council’s local plan identifies requirements for the site including a “significant bus network” going to Effingham Junction and/or Horsley stations, as well as  Guildford and Cobham. It would also require a cycle network to key destinations including stations, Ripley and Byfleet “to a level that would be attractive and safe for the average cyclist”.

Imogen Jamieson, vice chair of Ockham Parish Council, does not think the narrow roads surrounding the site can support the additional traffic, and isn’t convinced cycle lanes would be used anyway. She said: “You’re not going to pack your three children onto the back of bikes and cycle them to Horsley to get to school in the pouring rain.” The parish councillor also said she believes it’s a “myth” that so many new homes are needed, though she does acknowledge that there is a need for places for people to live. She said the environmental impacts of building new homes are far greater than re-purposing and retrofitting existing buildings, which can be done in towns and urban areas.

On top of the plans for the airfield, a further 1,500 new homes are planned in a three-mile radius of the site, but Mrs Jamieson said homes would be better built in areas where there are already transport links, employment opportunities and facilities such as doctors and schools. She said: “Here you’re entirely reliant on a car. It’s positioned right by the strategic road network. So it’s going to mean that people are constantly in their cars trying to access everything.” She claimed there was an over-allocation of homes in the local plan, which came to light when the census released in June showed the figures used to draw up the plan were too high. “I’m still trying to understand the way housing is delivered in the country,” she said. “I think it’s a bit of a myth that we need homes in the way that we’re constantly told we do.”

A Taylor Wimpey spokesperson said: “The former Wisley Airfield is allocated for development in the Guildford Borough Council local plan and our proposals have been carefully considered following close engagement with key stakeholders and the local community. We understand the concerns of local residents regarding traffic and our proposals include a number of measures to encourage the use of sustainable transport options, including new bus services and cycle routes. The design and layout of the development has been considered with the surrounding area in mind and we will continue to consult with residents on this as our plans progress.”

Guildford Borough Council was contacted for comment.

Local plan documents: https://www.guildford.gov.uk/localplan/2015-2034
Wisley Airfield development page: https://www.wisleyairfield.com/

Image: Wisley Airfield plans. Credit Taylor Wimpey and Vivid

Keeping with our current focus on planning matters. Woking Borough Council contain the container problem of a posh hotel. Read Local Democracy Reporter Emily Coady-Stemp’s report here.

A Surrey mansion hotel has been given three months to remove from its land two shipping containers being used for storage. Gorse Hill Hotel, near Woking, applied for a lawful development certificate for the containers in January but the application was refused.

Image: Gorse Hill Hotel. Credit: Darren Pepe

The containers, which according to council documents are being used to store tables, chairs and other hotel equipment, have been in place for more than three years.

A meeting of Woking Borough Council’s planning committee on Tuesday (September 6) voted to issue an enforcement notice saying the containers must be removed.

The hotel and conference centre, in Hook Heath Road, is described on its website as “an elegant mansion house hotel [in a] peaceful location, surrounded by expansive manicured gardens”. The Grade II listed building, which was once private house, was built in 1910 and has since been extended. Bed and breakfast at the hotel starts at £124 per night.

The borough council first received a complaint about the two containers in December 2021. Both the neighbour complaining and the hotel’s own subsequent application for the containers said they have been in place since May 2019. Each of the two storage containers measures 6m long x 2.4m wide x 2.5m tall.

According to council documents, in its application for the containers in January, the hotel said they did not amount to development, because they were “ancillary to the site’s use”, did not comprise a “building” operation or constitute a material change in use of the land.

The application was rejected by the council because the “degree of permanence” of the containers, along with their size and each being fixed to the ground through their own weight, meant they counted as buildings according to planning legislation, and therefore planning permission was required.

The council’s senior planning enforcement officer visited the hotel on May 16, when the containers were still being used and had not been moved.

Gorse Hill Hotel has not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.

Full agenda: 

Epsom and Ewell Times has reported recently on planning dilemmas for our Borough. We are not alone in facing pressure on Green Belt land. 2 miles away from the edge of the Borough, Elmbridge Borough Council decided on a Green Belt development. Emily Coady-Stemp reports:

Studios for business start-ups and three new homes have been given the green light at the “gateway to Elmbridge” despite fears for the future of a golf club.

Image: Waffrons proposed development of studios area. From design and access statement.

One councillor claimed others “aren’t concerned” about the borough’s local welfare or green belt as the application was approved.

The application, submitted by the family who have lived at The Waffrons, in Chessington South, for 30 years, will see the current stables on the land demolished.

Surbiton Golf Club objected to the plans due to fears that potential additional traffic to the site, which is accessed through the course, would affect play on its first, fifth and eighth holes.

Elmbridge Borough Council’s planning committee voted for the plans on Tuesday (September 6), having rejected a motion to refuse them that was put forward by Councillor Janet Turner (Hinchley Wood Residents’ Association, Hinchley Wood and Weston Green). She was talked into putting forward the motion to refuse the plans by Claygate Councillor Alex Coomes (Liberal Democrats) who said she should do it “for completeness and for democratic reasons”. Cllr Turner had previously said that listening to the debate she though there was “very little point” in her putting forward reasons for refusal for a vote. She added: “It’s fairly obvious to me that people aren’t concerned about our local welfare or our green belt, so that disturbs me quite a lot.”

Her reasons included it being inappropriate development in the green belt, as well as traffic concerns along the single track lane. Cllr Turner described the site as “very important” because it was the “gateway to Elmbridge from Greater London” and a corridor of green land from Claygate and Hinchley Wood to Long Ditton.

Officers at the meeting said the bar was very high for assessing “harm” in green belt land that was previously developed, as this had been. The three planned houses on the site would all be detached bungalows, with an applicant’s representative stating one of the homes was for the daughter of the family currently living there.

The 11 studios would be from 10 to 19 square metres each, with a communal area around a courtyard. The current use of the land for horses would stop, with commercial livery being replaced by it only being used for the private enjoyment of the new homes. BabyBarn, a shop for baby equipment currently on the site, would stay, with part of the stables being redeveloped for storage.

Keith Blake, chairman of Surbiton Golf Club, spoke at the meeting to object to the plans, which he called the “biggest threat to the future of the club and course”. The club, which has been in existence since 1895, has around 700 members and membership fees of £1,900. Mr Blake said the club did not object to some development of homes on the site, but saw the commercial element as “perhaps a step too far” and that traffic needed to be reduced or limited. He added: “Otherwise, I see the members walking and joining other clubs. “If we lose 20 per cent of our membership, the club will not be in existence for the community in the future.”

An officer’s report into the application said the plans were not “considered to adversely impact upon Surbiton Golf Club to warrant a refusal reason”. Conditions had been put on traffic entering the site both during the construction phases and once in use.

Many councillors were in favour of the small business units, saying they were in demand in Elmbridge and would be even more so when 60 offices in Weybridge were lost as part of a Regus site redevelopment.

Councillor Bruce McDonald (Liberal Democrat, Claygate) said he had “great sympathy” with the golf club and concerns around traffic on the road but like others saw no information to conclude there would be more traffic than currently on the site. He added: “I would have artisan studios everywhere, I think it’s what we need. I think it’d be great for Elmbridge.”

Councillor Rachael Lake (Conservative, Walton North) asked councillors to raise their hands if they had ever heard of a golf course going out of business or bankrupt, because she had not. She added: “I sympathise because it’s all perception. “It’s the fear of going to the dentist, when you get there, it’s nowhere near as bad as you think.”

Full agenda

On Friday 2nd September Mark Easton, the BBC’s top home affairs reporter, swooped down on Epsom and Ewell. Our Borough suffers from nimbyism and we could easily meet our housing targets, was his report’s message. The Epsom and Ewell Times takes his two minute report to task.

First – he opens his report while standing on Epsom Common off Woodcote Side. The implication being that this area could in part be developed for housing. Did he not check it was a Local Nature Reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest?

Secondly, he travelled to Station Approach Stoneleigh and suggests the rejection of a plan to build a four storey block of flats was mistaken. The plan was rejected in February 2022. The developer Woolbro Homes ( a part of St James Group Ltd which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the multi-million Berkeley Group Holdings Plc) did not exercise its right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.

Perhaps they accepted the grounds for refusal which included overdevelopment, overbearing and incongruity. Moreover, the applicants had failed to sign a commitment to affordable housing.

Thirdly, the report of the BBC showed Cllr Liz Frost objecting to a 22 room residence for students near Epsom’s University for the Creative Arts in Ashley Road, Epsom. The reportage gave the impression that housing needed to meet ordinary housing targets was being denied. UCA indicated in connection with the case that it is attracting mainly foreign students to its new business courses. See Epsom and Ewell Times report on the meeting HERE

Lastly, Mr Easton claimed no Councillor was available for comment. The Epsom and Ewell Times know of at least two Councillors who attended the Planning Committee meeting who were NOT asked. Mark Easton is not available for comment as his direct contacts cannot be found. Grace Manning-Marsh of LandTech, was interviewed by Mr Easton, she was critical of Epsom and Ewell’s failure to authorise developments on Green Belt. She did not ring back when asked to talk to us.

Council postpone a controversial planning application for their own site visit. Mr Colin Preston’s plan to knock down a neglected house called Green Gables in Ashley Road, Epsom was deferred. A 22 student bedroom development is proposed to take the place of the neglected Green Gables house. The development provides no more than 8 square metres per bedroom with two shared kitchens and two shared living spaces. Thursday 1^st September, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Planning Committee discussed a number of objections matching the number of bedrooms. 22 in all, concerning loss of privacy, overdevelopment, impact on the nearby Worple Road conservation area and many other grounds.

The Woodcote (Epsom) Residents’ Society submitted “…excessive scale would be visually obtrusive, over-shadow the rear gardens and result in significant light spillage from the glazed stairwell and lobby area at night. The amenity area would give rise to unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance and the narrow footpath between the proposed buildings and the boundary with Ladbroke Road properties being a potential area for antisocial behaviour and security concerns…”

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) of Epsom and Ewell BC dated September 2019 concludes that “there does not seem to be a great demand for additional Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) at the moment”. Mr Preston, the developer, contacted the University of the Creative Arts (UCA) situated just yards away in Ashley Road. UCA responded with the following: “We can confirm that UCA is broadly supportive of an increase in provision of student accommodation in and around Epsom and Farnham, both in Surrey. We have opened a dialogue with the local authorities in both towns, with a view to enlisting their support in addressing what is an increasing need for suitable accommodation for our students.

For the current year 2021/2022, UCA has approximately 1,800 students enrolled on our Epsom campus, of which 321 first years were housed in university provided accommodation. The others rely on the local private rental sector, or commute further away. Recently UCA also commenced a February intake into our Business School for the Creative Industries which is proving quite attractive to students, especially those from abroad.”

Following a 90 minute debate the application was not decided on pending a site visit voted for by a majority of the Councillors.

Epsom and Ewell Times understands that UCA is heavily oversubscribed for the coming academic year. More student accommodation appears to be required by the Borough for its growing University population.

At the meeting Cllr Liz Frost, not a member of the Planning Committee, (Residents Association – Woodcote Ward) spoke against the proposal. She described the proposal as “Overdevelopment, far too close to neighbouring properties and overbearing. Rear of properties will be flooded by lighting from the development. Inevitably there will be disturbing noise effecting enjoyment of neighbouring gardens. Conditions suggested to deal with noise are unenforceable without a warden on site. The 32 square feet of outside amenity space wholly inadequate.”

Local Ladbroke Road resident Paul Ring described the development as “a cramped student house in multiple occupation (HMO) and there would be disturbance from the movement of students in a narrow space”.

Spencer Copping, the agent for the applicant, defended the application and asked the Committee to support the recommendation of the Council officers to approve the plan.

The Council Officer argued that there would be a requirement for a “management strategy” to deal with anti-social behaviour and that would mitigate risk of disturbance of neighbours.

Cllr Steve McCormick (RA Woodcote) expressed concern about the lack of amenity space for the students. The Officer explained that as a student accommodation the development was not subject to amenity space requirements and the nearby Rosebery Park mitigated this. The Councillor proposed refusal of the application. Cllr Previn Jagutpal (RA Stamford) also spoke against on grounds of the density and lack of amenity space.

Cllr Alex Coley (RA Ruxley) asked for the matter to be put off to allow a Councillors’ inspection and despite the Chairman Cllr Humphrey Reynolds describing site inspections as a “waste of time”, a majority voted to inspect. If a decision had been reached approval would have been voted for by Cllr Kate Chinn (Labour Court Ward) who recognised the need for more student accommodation in the Borough. Cllr David Gulland (LibDem College Ward) reluctantly accepted there were no legal grounds to refuse that would withstand an appeal to an inspector and would vote in favour.

Cllr Jan Mason (RA Ruxley Ward) could not accept that 22 students should live together without a responsible supervisor living there. They would play hip-hop music and make noise. She thought the rear of the development looks “like a prison”. She asked “Why white brick? That would not fit the area.”

Green Gables‘ registered proprietor is one Bernard Wells who has owned it since at latest 1994 and the property is subject to a Swindon County Court charge in 2008 in favour of Thames Water Utilities Ltd. The Land Registry entries can be out of date due to months’ long backlogs in data entry.

Having a third bite at the planning cherry Quanta Homes 3 Ltd is applying to Epsom and Ewell Borough Council for permission to demolish the old and ornately faced building situated at 24-28 West Street Epsom. In its place a new 5 / 6 storey modern residential block of 20 units. Including just 10% in the “affordable” category.

Quanta Homes 3 Ltd is one of about 10 similarly named private limited property companies, active or dissolved under the sole directorship of Mr Robert Du Toit.

Rejected planning applications for first a 13 storey and then an 8 storey building are now followed by a part 5 and part 6 storey building application.

No doubt this latest application will excite again the debate between modernisers of the Town and preservers of the Town. You can make your views known online to the Council on THIS LINK

Related

Mind the Epsom Town Centre Masterplan!

£225,000 to plan the unplanned

Following a 4-week public consultation, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council unveiled its new draft Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) at a meeting of the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee on 28^th July.  This describes how local residents, businesses and other organisations can be involved in the planning process in Epsom and Ewell.

It is a legal requirement for the Council to have an SCI and to review it every five years as the way in which communities and the Council interact changes.

Planning decisions affect us all so, if you are interested in your area and would like to be involved in shaping future planning policy in Epsom & Ewell, you can:

• Sign up to receive notifications about local plan consultations.
• Read the council’s Local Development Scheme to find out what documents are going to be produced and when.
• Monitor the council’s Planning Policy webpages for updates and latest news.

·         Check if a Neighbourhood Forum has been established in your area to prepare a neighbourhood plan.

The draft SCI can be read in the Agenda Reports Pack of the committee meeting, but please be aware that it is subject to some small amendments as a result of questions and suggestions raised by councillors at the meeting.

Langley Bottom Farm in Epsom is to become a small housing estate following the decision of Planning Inspector D Hartley dated 14th July 2022. Overturning a refusal of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council and against overwhelming objections of the public in the 168 recorded submissions the Inspector allowed the appeal of Fairfax Properties, despite the location being in Green Belt land.

The Inspector made the following controversial observations:

“One of the purposes of Green Belt is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The site includes a number of existing buildings and areas of hardstanding. The latter has the continued potential to be used for the parking of vehicles. Overall, and taking into account the existing use, characteristics and extent of development on the site, I am satisfied that subject to the imposition of planning conditions the proposal would not lead to countryside encroachment and hence there would be no conflict with this Green Belt purpose.”

Concerning local facilities for the future occupants he stated “Langley Vale is within reasonable walking and cycling distance of the appeal site. It contains a limited number of facilities and amenities such as the ‘Park and Shop’ petrol filling station convenience store, ‘The Shop on the Corner’, garage, village hall, pre-school and primary school. I acknowledge the Council’s comment that ‘The Shop on the Corner’ appears to have ceased trading. There is of course some possibility that the property could be used again as a shop but, in any event, ‘The Park and Shop’ does provide some food and drink provision albeit that I acknowledge that it would likely only be used on the basis of day to day ‘topping up’.”

On public transport, walking and cycling he observed with optimism: “The site is located in close proximity to bus stops within Langley Vale and includes bus service E5 every two hours to Epsom (Monday to Saturday) and school service 618 (Monday to Friday). Furthermore, three mainline railway stations are located nearby (Epsom, Epsom Downs and Tattenham Corner) providing commuting services to London and access to destinations further afield. There is also bus service 408 from Epsom to Cobham and stopping at Leatherhead and which runs Monday to Friday calling at Langley Vale once a day. I acknowledge that services are not very frequent but nevertheless I find that some of the proposed residents would use them on occasion. The evidence is that the site is served well by a number of public footpath and cycle routes where some limited opportunities would be available, primarily in the day time and when there is no inclement weather. These could be used to visit services and amenities both locally and further afield.”

The Inspector did observe that Epsom and Ewell Borough Council had allowed arguably unauthorised uses of the land to continue unchallenged for so many years that the “developed uses” became lawful. The claims of threats to the Green Belt were thereby undermined.

40% of the houses are to be “affordable”. Time will tell how affordable they will be.