Statement from Bob Evans, Head of Planning, Tandridge District Council

Above all, it is important to note that every Government including the current one has wished to see more new homes built in this country. This is an attractive and prosperous part of the country and it is not surprising that people want to live here. Nevertheless, we are 94% Green Belt in Tandridge, and our towns and villages have limited capacity to take new development. On this basis we have secured a very low housing target for our area (in fact the joint second lowest allocation of all local authority areas in the whole SE Region) at 2500 homes over 20 years i.e. about 125 a year on average. This is a lower rate than for previous years and the lowest in Surrey. Our strategy in providing land for this modest target is to protect the Green Belt; and to manage such new development in our towns and villages in the best way possible under national planning law and policy.

The focus is to recycle land and to direct new housing to previously developed land within the built up areas. This means that places such as Caterham-on-the Hill where the biggest sites have been and are available will inevitably take the most development. This has happened in recent years because the Ministry of Defence has disposed of developed land at the former RAF Kenley married quarters area and Caterham Barracks; and because the NHS has disposed of land at the former St Lawrence's Hospital. Nobody particularly likes change, and these developments will inevitably have had an impact on the area and community. Nevertheless the District Council should take some credit for ensuring through representations and lobbying for having such a low housing allocation in the first place; and also for ensuring, as far as planning processes allow, that the redevelopment of such large sites in such a short period of time has been done in a comprehensive and co-ordinated way, addressing the local impacts. For instance, there have been many local services and facilities provided along with new development that would not have happened otherwise, including traffic/transport (e.g. the Barrack's site bus service); the provision of maintained open space (e.g. at Hambledon Park); contributions to local recreation and community facilities; contributions to local schools; and improved GP's surgery provision.

Obviously, if such sites were available in other places, then these too would have been considered for redevelopment. On the question of employment, we do not get queries from people wishing to start or expand businesses - on the contrary we have a great deal of vacant employment floorspace that we would wish to see occupied.