At a meeting of the Tandridge District Council Planning Committee held yesterday evening, Thursday 28th June, planning permission was refused for the application to redevelop the site of the Caterham Cars showroom and workshop in Caterham Valley. During a debate that lasted approximately one hour, Chief Planning Officer, Piers Mason pointed out to the officers that the issue of whether or not Caterham Cars should stay in Caterham is not what they should be considering. The issue at stake was the merits of the proposed development for 35 sheltered apartments and 128 sq m of commercial floor space in the location of Stafford Road.

The recommendation of Mr Mason to the Planning Officers was to refuse the application on the grounds that:

1. The proposal would result in the loss of an employment site and it is not considered that the site is redundant or unsuitably located to allow its loss contrary to policy CSP22 of the Core Strategy DPD 2008.

2. The proposed development wold lead to a concentration of accommodation for the elderly in the locality, creating a large area of housing with similar characteristics which would cause an imbalance in the type of dwelling adversely affecting the community. Furthermore, the concentration of high need patients will result in an increase in demand for health care services resulting in a detrimental impact on the local doctors' surgery. As such the proposal is contrary to policies CSP7 and CSP11 of the Core Strategy DPD 2008.

3. The proposal fails to demonstrate that the design and layout of the proposed development is safe and secure through the inclusion of measures to address crime and disorder contrary to policy CSP15 of the Core Strategy DPD 2008.

4. The proposal fails to provide satisfactory refuse and recycling facilities contrary to policy BE1 of the Tandridge District Local Plan 2001.

Cllr. Jill Caudle, Tandridge District Councillor for Caterham Valley proposed the motion that there should be three further reasons for refusal based on inadequate parking provision, lack of sufficient amenity space for elderly residents and that the proposed development fails to meet the character of the area. These three further reasons were not carried by the Planning Officers, who went on to vote against the planning application for the four reasons listed above.

Andrew Burgess, the spokesperson for the developers, Churchill Retirement Homes, said afterwards that they would appeal the decision.