A CRUCIAL public inquiry which could indicate whether thousands of extra homes need to be built in the Tandridge district started on Tuesday.
Dozens of concerned residents attended the hearing at the council offices in Oxted – where the future housing requirement for Tandridge came under scrutiny.
Outwood-based Village Developments is appealing against the district council's rejection of its plans for two alternative housing schemes – of 14 and 27 homes respectively – in Whyteleafe Road, Caterham.
One reason the council refused planning permission is because it claimed the developments would add to the current oversupply of housing.
But Village Developments contends Tandridge needs 500-plus extra homes annually, whereas the council's Core Strategy – a planning blueprint which outlines where thousands of homes should be built – allows for just 125 extra dwellings per annum.
Three barristers are taking part in the hearing representing the district council, the developers and a residents' alliance (Oxted and Limpsfield Residents' Group, Caterham on the Hill Parish Council and Woldingham Parish Council).
Scott Lyness, representing the district council, pointed out the local authority had "substantially exceeded" its housing target in recent years despite the fact that Tandridge is comprised of 94 per cent green belt land.
He added: "There is no justification for granting planning permission on this site, relying on an unsubstantiated assessment of housing needs."
Mr Lyness said Village Developments' schemes were poorly-designed which would harm the character and appearance of the area.
Paul Brown, a QC funded by the residents' groups, told the hearing: "This appeal raised important questions about the objectively assessed need for more housing in Tandridge.
"The appellant – Village Developments – have interests in sites in other parts of Tandridge, including in Oxted and Woldingham."
He warned that if the strip of land in Whyteleafe was freed for extensive housing it could set a precedent and put pressure on many other hotspots across the district.
But Jonathan Clay, the barrister for Village Developments, said they would seek legal costs from the council because of its "unreasonable behaviour" in rejecting their plans.
He added: "The council is in denial over major national changes in planning policy that have taken place.
"Its Core Strategy is not up-to-date because it is based on a 2008 plan."
The inquiry is set to conclude on Friday.
↧