107 homes and business space at Land At Oakley Farm North Of Bletchingley Road Merstham

What was proposed

The hybrid application sought up to 107 homes, a traveller pitch, open space, commercial floorspace, retained buildings and a replacement garage.

“(i) An outline planning application with all matters reserved, except access, for the demolition of 4 existing buildings and the erection of up to 107 dwellings, the provision of a traveller pitch, associated works, landscaping and open space with access from Bletchingley Road (All matters reserved except access); and…”

“(ii) a full planning application for the demolition of 8 existing buildings, the refurbishment and retention of 3 existing buildings to provide commercial floorspace (Use Class E(g)(i) (ii)), the retention of an existing dwelling and the erection of a replacement garage, with access from Bletchingley Road.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was mainly open pasture and paddocks with trees, hedges, farm buildings, nearby housing, countryside and public rights of way.

“The site is located on the eastern edge of Merstham, accessed via a narrow track from Bletchingley Road. With the exception of a number of farm buildings on the south-western edge of the site, which form Oakley Farm, the majority of the site is undeveloped and open, set to pastureland and paddocks. There are a number of trees and hedges across the site and to the boundaries including a number of mature oak trees.”

“The Merstham housing estate is located to the west of the site, with a recreation area sited to the far north-west, adjacent to an area of woodland. Residential properties in the area are typically two storeys, utilising traditional design forms and local Wealden materials. To the east is open countryside within the metropolitan green belt. Public right of way (no 168) crosses the site in a north-south direction providing public access.”

Officer report

Planning history and allocation

The site was allocated as a Sustainable Urban Extension, and there was no relevant planning history.

“Since the adoption of the Council's Development Management Plan (2019) the site has been allocated as a Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) under Policy ERM5. However, it is noted that the applicant's red line extends beyond the allocation boundary and includes land within the green belt to the north-east.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal could meet allocation, highway, landscape, housing, infrastructure and environmental requirements subject to an agreement and conditions.

“25/00009/OUT It is considered that the proposal would be able to meet the allocation, mitigation and infrastructure requirements of ERM5 at reserved matters stage and the proposal is considered to meet the requirements of ERM5 with regard to highway and public transport improvements and highway safety considerations with regard to Policy TAP1 and the NPPF.”

“There are a number of benefits associated with the application, including the provision of 38 units as affordable housing in a tenure split of social rented units and shared ownership units, the provision of housing for older people together with contributions towards highways improvements, ecology and biodiversity net gain, landscape, trees, transport, flooding, ground conditions, archaeology, noise, economic benefits from both the construction phase and post construction…”

Officer report

What consultees said

Consultees generally raised no objections subject to conditions, contributions and measures covering highways, flooding, ecology, trees, heritage, contamination and archaeology.

“Housing Offic er : No objections raised to the provision of 35% affordable housing (38 units) with a mix of 62% Affordable Rented Units or Social Rent Units and 38% Shared Ownership Units in a mix of sizes, and including 2 wheelchair units. The affordable housing would be delivered through a section 106 agreement.”

“Tree Officer: A TPO has been made which protects 28 individual trees on the site. The TPO is based on the parameter plans and will no t prevent the development being implemented. The TPO has been served to protect the trees from post development pressure. No objections are raised subject to conditions.”

Officer report

What residents said

Around 340 responses raised concerns including parking, traffic, noise, construction, overdevelopment, character, wildlife, flooding, crime and harm to the countryside.

“Issue Response Inadequate parking See paragraphs 6.100 to 6.103 No need for the development See paragraphs 6.4 to 6.10 Noise & disturbance See paragraphs 6.80 to 6.84 Inconvenience during construction See paragraph 6.83 Out of character with surrounding area See paragraphs 6.60 to 6.79 Increase in traffic and congestion…”

“See paragraphs 6.108 to 6.115 Harm to wildlife habitat…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A visiting member questioned the loss of local amenities, housing pressure, affordable housing, infrastructure, motorway pollution and the effect on wildlife.

The committee discussion

The planning officer explained the allocation, affordable housing, healthcare capacity, biodiversity arrangements and the timetable for detailed plans and reserved matters.

“The Planning officer explained that the SUE site was not a greenbelt site. In terms of housing targets, the target was a borough wide target. 35% would be affordable housing and it would depend on the cascade mechanism as to how many would be for affordable rent etc.”

“In terms of when the houses had to be built, it was stated that the developer needed to come forward with detailed plans within 3 years, then after that reserved matters…”

Minutes

The committee decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the recommended conditions and addendum.

“RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions as per the recommendation and addendum.”

Minutes