School Land Development:
To contact SARA by e-mail, please use this e-mail address: chairman@stoneleighandauriol.co.uk
Latest News:
CUDDINGTON
AVENUE - A "WELCOME STEP":
Cuddington
Avenue Advisory Group has hailed the outcome of the recent meeting between its
Chairman, Bill Slaughter, and Mr Peter Cobb, a main board director of Fairview
New Homes, as a "welcome step and real advance towards a possible
solution" (see Home Page). The Group also welcomed the letter from Mr Cobb
- reproduced below - as a sign of good faith by the company and will respond to
the letter shortly, in an equally positive manner.
CUDDINGTON AVENUE: SCoRA CHAIRMAN CONDEMNS BEHAVIOUR OF FAIRVIEW NEW HOMES:
Mr Keith
Lugton, (pictured left), Chairman of the Standing Committee of Residents’ Associations
(SCoRA), has attacked the behaviour of property developers, Fairview New Homes Ltd.
Mr Lugton said, “Residents objected to the development proposed by Fairview New Homes. They made their views known to Fairview New Homes who took absolutely no notice. The residents then made their views known to the Borough Council’s Planning Committee who did take note. As a result the planning application was rejected.
The behaviour of Fairview New Homes and their unwillingness to listen to anything which is being said by or on behalf of those who are most directly affected by the proposed development has caused grave concern among residents about the suitability of this development and about the company which submitted the planning application.
Residents are not opposed to any development of the site but they are strongly opposed to the inappropriate development which was proposed. It is to be hoped that following the rejection of the original proposal Fairview New Homes will now put forward a proposal which is acceptable to possible new residents and to existing residents.”
FAIRVIEW NEW HOMES DEFEAT - FRONT PAGE NEWS IN 'THE POST':
Cuddington Avenue Advisory Group's Chairman, Bill Slaughter, said later, "It may well be that Fairview New Homes will opt to appeal the Council's decision but the Planning Committee's many robust reasons for refusal should weigh heavily on their minds before they take such a step." To read more on the residents' victory, click here > School Land Development.
CUDDINGTON AVENUE - FAIRVIEW NO HOMES!
One of the two huge blocks of three-storey flats that Fairview New Homes was refused permission to build in Cuddington Avenue.
More than 150 residents packed the public gallery and rear of the council chamber to hear the application rejected. 560 written objections from local residents had been submitted to Epsom & Ewell Borough Council. Fairview New Homes purchased the tiny 0.43 hectare site, situated between the Auriol and Mead schools, from Conservative-controlled Surrey County Council at a cost of £2.785million in January this year. (Pictured left: Some of the 150 residents who attended the Planning Committee meeting at the Town Hall, expressing their delight at the Committee's decision to refuse the Fairview New Homes application).
Cuddington Avenue Advisory Group, which was set up jointly by Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents' Association (SARA) and Cuddington Residents' Association to represent residents opposed to the developer's scheme, submitted a 17-page Objection Report commissioned from an expert independent planning consultant, urging refusal of the application. The report into the Planning Application by Fairview New Homes Ltd identified and detailed more than fifteen instances of Fairview's non-compliance with Planning Policy, Core Strategy and Supplementary Planning Guidelines. The Council's Planning Officer also recommended refusal. For full details click here > School Land Development.
CUDDINGTON AVENUE – PROPOSED SCHOOL LAND DEVELOPMENT REJECTED!
The second of two huge blocks of three-storey flats that Fairview New Homes was refused permission to build in Cuddington Avenue.
18th October 2008:
From the Epsom and Banstead Guardian, 16th October 2008:
9th October 2008:
Cuddington
Avenue Advisory Group's Chairman, Bill Slaughter (centre left) and
group
member,
Ken Robinson (centre right), join victorious residents celebrating the
victory.
Fairview New Homes' planning application, to build a highly controversial scheme comprising of two huge blocks of 49 three-storey flats on former school land in Cuddington Avenue, was refused unanimously by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council's Planning Committee on Thursday 9th October. The rejected scheme would have consisted of 20 'affordable' - i.e., social rented dwellings and 29 'sheltered accommodation' flats – although this use could easily have been changed to social rented housing too. The overall scheme comprised of 99 beds - 4 x 1-bed flats, 40 x 2-bed flats and 5 x 3-bed flats – with just 30 off-street parking places (including 2 disabled parking places) on a tiny 0.43 acre site squeezed in between the Auriol and Mead schools, in Cuddington Avenue.
Mr Bill Slaughter, Chairman of Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents' Association and Chairman of the Cuddington Avenue Advisory Group, praised residents for supporting the Advisory Group's campaign - and paid a glowing tribute to the group's hard working members. Following the Planning Committee's refusal of Fairview's application, Bill Slaughter said, "On behalf of the Advisory Group, I thank every one of the five hundred and sixty residents who submitted written objections to the scheme. Our thanks must also go the hundred and fifty residents who braved a cold night to come to the Town Hall and listen to councillors debating the application. The Group's co-ordinator, Chris Franklin, has been the backbone of the Advisory Group's campaign and we have been well-supported by the tireless efforts of other members too - especially Ken Robinson and Kelly Reynolds. Most especially, our thanks also go to Mr Neil Bevan, Chairman of Cudington Residents' Association, who first alerted residents to the proposed development and to Cuddingon RA for hosting a public meeting, attended by more than 100 local residents, at which Fairview's unwanted scheme was made public."
Mr Slaughter added, "It may well be that Fairview New Homes will opt to appeal the Council's decision but the robust reasons given by the Planning Committee for the refusal should weigh heavily on their minds before they take such a step. The Advisory Group has been working with a director of Fairview New Homes to produce a family housing-led scheme which would not be over-dense in scale and massing or out of character with the local area. Those talks will continue because residents are not opposed to any development at all on this site - just to the rejected application, which Fairview originally agreed would not be submitted - but then went back on their word."
Bill
Slaughter concluded, "The Group wishes to thank Mr Christopher B Smith
FRICS MEWI, of Anderson Gover, the London firm of Chartered Surveyors we
commissioned to produce the Objection Report that we submitted to the Planning
Committee and also Epsom & Ewell Borough
Council Planning Officer, Mr John Robinson, for his thoroughly researched and
superbly presented Officer Report to members of the Planning Committee. In his
report, Mr Robinson recommended refusal on the grounds
that;
(1)
The proposed scheme due to its design, scale and massing and the proximity of
the two blocks to the street would be out of keeping with the character of the
existing residential development and would adversely affect the street scene.
The proposals would thus be contrary to policies BE1, BE19, HSG1 and DC1 of the
Epsom and Ewell District-Wide Local Plan 2000 and CS1 and CS5 of the Epsom and
Ewell Core Strategy 2007.
(2) The erection of the proposed scheme on this restricted site would result in a development having a cramped and overcrowded layout, with insufficient private amenity/garden space around the buildings. The proposal would thus be contrary to Policies HSG11 and DC1 of the Epsom and Ewell District-Wide Local Plan 2000.
(3) The layout of the proposed parking spaces would encroach within the root protection area of a protected Walnut Tree which may harm the health and future growth of this tree. The proposal would therefore have a significantly detrimental impact on the visual amenity and landscape character of the area, contrary to policies BE1, NE7 and NE8 of the Epsom and Ewell District-Wide Local Plan 2000, and policies CS1, CS3 and CS5 of the Core Strategy 2007.
Finally, our thanks go to all the members of the Planning Committee, who determined the application strictly on merit and rejected it unanimously, after adding two further reasons for refusal.
Background History:
Cuddington Avenue Advisory Group's Co-ordinator, Chris Franklin (right) at the Town Hall
with the Group's Chairman, Bill Slaughter, delivering
478 objection letters from local residents
opposed to Fairview New Homes' controversial planning application.
4th October 2008:
The Advisory Group met on Thursday 2nd October 2008 to discuss the second possible revised scheme, submitted by Fairview New Homes. The Group recognised that, if Fairview New Homes succeeds with the existing application - which it refused to withdraw during the on-going discussions - Fairview would immediately abandon any alternative scheme. For this reason, the Group has postponed a meeting with Fairview New Homes' directors until the decision of the borough council's Planning Committee on the existing application is known.
A letter, dated 26th September 2008, has been received from the 'Democratic Services Officer' (!) of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, advising the Council's refusal to provide each member of the Planning Committee with a copy of the Objection Report commissioned by the Cuddington Avenue Advisory Group from an independent expert planning consultant. The reason given for the refusal is that it would be, "unfair to send out copies of some but not all of the representations received."
The group anticipated this reaction and has now provided a copy of the Objection Report directly to each member of the Planning Committee. The group took this action as it believes that it is totally unrealistic to expect councillors to study a 17-page professionally-prepared report, containing more than fifteen major grounds for refusal of the Fairview New Homes planning application, simply by glancing through a copy of it in the Members Room.
27th September 2008:
Cuddington Avenue Advisory Group received a letter today from Fairview New Homes with an enclosed outline drawing of a second possible revised scheme, which is based on a substantial reduction from the 49 units proposed in the current planning application to 30 units.
Whilst the major objections to the existing planning application and first possible revised scheme still appear not to have been fully addressed in the new revision, the Advisory Group will now arrange a meeting as soon as possible with Fairview's Planning Director to discuss the second revised scheme in detail. Depending on the outcome, the Advisory Group will consider organising a public meeting to test the views of residents. In the meantime, the group remains totally committed to defeating the existing application, which has attracted more than 500 written objections from residents.
The Advisory Group will write shortly to every resident who submitted an objection to the Fairview's existing planning application, advising them of the time and date of the Planning Committee meeting (7.30pm on Thursday 9th October 2008, in the Town Hall) at which Fairview's existing application will be determined by councillors.
20th September 2008:
SARA
CHAIRMAN, BILL SLAUGHTER, WHO ALSO CHAIRS THE CUDDINGTON AVENUE ADVISORY GROUP, WRITES:
“I have received numerous phone calls from worried Cuddington residents who are concerned about an article
by G. Dudley, a Cuddington Ward councillor, in The Cuddingtonian magazine. Cllr.
G. Dudley wrote, "Subsequent attempts by the Chairman of Stoneleigh and Auriol RA to persuade Fairview Homes (sic) to consider an alternative development of houses has (sic) proved
unsuccessful….”
Ignoring the grammatical error (and incorrectly stated name of the developer), Cllr G. Dudley’s article requires clarification on two counts.
Firstly, it is not me alone who is working on behalf of residents (as Cllr. G. Dudley implies in his article) but all the members of Cuddington Avenue Advisory Group. The group, whilst working tirelessly to defeat the existing planning application, is also in discussion with Fairview New Homes (the company’s correct title) to negotiate a scheme that might be more acceptable to residents. Cuddington Avenue Advisory Group was jointly set up by Stoneleigh and Auriol RA and Cuddington RA. Four out of the five members of the group are Cuddington Ward residents.
Secondly, far from being “unsuccessful” in its “attempts to persuade Fairview New Homes to consider an alternative development of houses”, the group has been and is still engaged in on-going discussions with the developer. These discussions have been taking place since shortly after the public meeting hosted by Cuddington RA on 5th June 2008 and Cllr. G. Dudley could easily have checked both these facts at the time he wrote his article. I hope my comments will reassure all those residents who object to the planning application that everything possible is being done by the group on their behalf.”
A possible alternative scheme submitted to the group by the developer has been rejected on the grounds that it did not address the major concerns expressed by residents, namely over-development and out-of-character appearance. Fairview New Homes is currently preparing a revised proposal and the company’s planning director is due to meet with the group next week. If a scheme is proposed that the group feels might be acceptable it will organise a public meeting to obtain the views of residents.
However, as has been stated previously, the group remains totally committed to defeating the existing application, which has attracted more than 500 written objections from residents. Fairview New Homes is continuing to promote their existing application by using a firm of spin doctors to lobby borough councillors.
On 18th September 2008, the group delivered the Objection Report it commissioned from a leading firm of Chartered Surveyors, to the case officer at Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, with the following letter attached:
6th September 2008:
The e-mail reply from Mr Robinson to Bill Slaughter's letter (see below) of 28th August 2008:
From: John Robinson <jrobinson@epsom-ewell.gov.uk>
Subject: 08/00603/FUL Land at Auriol and the Mead School
Date: 02/09/2008 10:54:03
To: chairman@stoneleighandauriol.co.uk
Text:
Dear Mr Slaughter,
Your letter dated 28th August 2008 refers.
It is envisaged that the aforementioned application be submitted to the 9th October meeting of the Planning Committee for consideration.
My deadline for finalising my report would be Thursday the 25th September, and so in order for me to give due consideration to objections/comments received I would like to receive objections by the 22nd September.
Sincerely
John Robinson
Planning Officer
Tel: 01372 732387
Email: jrobinson@epsom-ewell.gov.uk
Web: www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk
30th August 2008:
Commenting
on the unfairness of planning law in this country, the advisory group's
chairman, Bill Slaughter, said, "Planning law in England and Wales is weighted overwhelmingly in favour of the corporate developer rather than
the protection of local residents whose lives they seek to blight with unwelcome developments in
the relentless pursuit of profit.
On 18th August 2008, when Chris Franklin and I delivered the 475 objection letters to Mr John Robinson (the case officer in charge of Fairview’s planning application) from residents opposing the Fairview application, Mr Robinson asserted - to our utter astonishment - that planning law in this country is “fair”.
However, when I pointed out to Mr Robinson that it cannot be ‘fair’ for a developer to have the right of appeal against a council's decision to refuse an application but an individual or body of objectors does not have the same right of appeal against a council’s decision to permit an application, Mr Robinson admitted that he had become confused with planning law in
countries such as South Africa (and, as we discovered later, the Isle of Man) - where the right of third-party appeal
DOES exist!"
18th August 2008:
On legal advice, the 17-page objection report commissioned by Cuddington Avenue Advisory Group from a top London-based firm of Chartered Surveyors as part of its campaign to prevent the proposed development being built on the site by Fairview New Homes has been withdrawn temporarily from Epsom & Ewell Borough Council. This follows a refusal by Mr Mark Berry, Head of Planning, to give an undertaking that his planning officers would not disclose the report's contents to the developer.
The Advisory Group's Chairman, Mr Bill Slaughter, said, "The objection report is highly sensitive as it contains not only the specific objections to the development but it also identifies numerous instances of due process not being followed. We have been advised by our expert consultant that the grounds for objection are so substantial they would be upheld even if the Council refuses the application and the developer goes to appeal.
If we had intended Fairview to see a copy of the report at this early stage, we would simply have sent one to them ourselves. We don't need the council's planning officers to do it for us, against our wishes. Our objective is to defeat this planning application which is so detested by the hundreds of residents we represent and we are now awaiting further legal advice on how to proceed."
Mr Slaughter added, "There is no suggestion of improper behaviour by Mr Berry, who appears to be following statutory guidelines on procedure. It is simply that the entire planning process is deeply flawed, weighted as heavily as it is in favour of developers."
The advisory group retained the firm to assist in its campaign to defeat the planning application Fairview New Homes has submitted to Epsom & Ewell Borough Council. The firm’s senior partner - a specialist planning consultant – has produced a 17-page report on the proposed scheme that identifies and details fourteen major grounds for refusal of the application. The report will be presented to the Council’s Planning Committee, together with more than four hundred and seventy-five written objections from local residents, when the planning application is debated by the Committee in October.
SACK LOAD OF OBJECTIONS TO CONTROVERSIAL DEVELOPMENT:
A sack containing almost five hundred letters of objection to a property developer’s controversial plans to build 49 flats in two huge blocks on former school land in Cuddington Avenue has been delivered to Epsom & Ewell Borough Council by Cuddington Avenue Advisory Group, the group representing residents in Auriol Ward and Cuddington Ward who object to the proposed scheme.
There is still time to send in a written objection to the scheme if you have not
already done so. Every objection will count. The Council’s senior planning
officer has confirmed that even written objections received up to two weeks
before the Planning Committee meeting will be placed before the committee.
Objections can be typed or hand-written. Your objection must include your name
and full address (including postcode) and should be addressed as follows:
Planning Dept., Ref: 08/00603/FUL, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, Town Hall,
The Parade, Epsom KT18 5BY.
These are the grounds on which you can object to the Fairview New Homes planning
application:
• Whether the appearance and size of the two blocks of flats is generally in
keeping with its neighbours and the surrounding area.
• Whether there will be any unreasonable increase in general disturbance, for
example from the comings and goings of extra traffic.
• Whether new roadways, accesses and adequate parking will be safe for road
users and pedestrians.
• Whether a proposed use is a suitable one for the area.
• Whether adjoining residents will suffer any unreasonable overshadowing,
overlooking or loss of privacy.
Please note: You cannot object on the grounds of loss of property value.
If you wish to view a plan of the application you can do so at either The Town
Hall (Mon-Fri, 9.00am-5.00pm) or Bourne Hall Library (normal library opening
times, including Saturdays). NOTE: The plans do not give a true perspective of
the height of the blocks of flats and the amount of overshadowing of nearby
residential properties and The Auriol and Mead schools.
The planning application is scheduled to be determined by Epsom & Ewell
Borough Council’s Planning Committee meeting at 7.30pm in the Town Hall on
Thursday 9th October 2008. It is hoped that as many residents as possible will
signal their opposition to this strongly-opposed development by coming and
listening to the debate. (Please check in advance with the Town Hall, on 01372
732000, to confirm that the planning application - Ref No: 08/00603/FUL - has
actually been listed to be heard at this meeting).
16th August 2008:
Cuddington Avenue Advisory Group has received the report it commissioned from a top
London-based firm of Chartered Surveyors as part of its campaign to prevent the
proposed development being built on the site by Fairview New Homes.
The advisory group retained the firm to assist in its campaign to defeat the
planning application Fairview new Homes has submitted to Epsom & Ewell
Borough Council. The firm’s senior partner - a specialist planning consultant
– has produced a 17-page report on the proposed scheme that identifies and
details fourteen major grounds for refusal of the application. The report will
be presented to the Council’s Planning Committee, together with almost
five
hundred written objections from local residents, when the planning
application is debated by the Committee in October.
Mr Bill Slaughter, Chairman of Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents’ Association
(SARA), who was appointed at Cuddington RA’s public meeting on 5th June to
spearhead the campaign, said, “Fairview New Homes has submitted a planning
application for two blocks of three-storey flats, both of grossly excessive mass
and bulk, entirely out of character with the local area and street scene which
includes low-rise primary and infant schools.
The scheme is of a density which is three or
four times higher than that which might be considered appropriate for the
vicinity.”
“The report produced by our expert consultant is the most damning one I have
ever seen. Not only has Fairview New Homes completely ignored the expressed
concerns of local residents but they have chosen to submit an application which
is a highly inappropriate development for this site and attempts to ride
roughshod over many of the borough council’s strategic policies and planning
objectives. We have already received more than four hundred and fifty written
objections to the application.”
Mr Slaughter added, “We have very good reason to suspect that the Council’s
own planning officers intend to recommend approval of this development. However,
we can only hope that Planning Committee councillors will refuse Fairview New
Homes’ planning application when they read the huge number of objections to it
and see the many serious flaws in the application that have been fully
documented in our consultant’s report.”
9th August
2008:
A previously
postponed meeting between SARA's Chairman, Mr Bill Slaughter and Fairview's
Planning Director, Mr Stephen Mellor, has been rescheduled to take place on
Thursday 14th August. Mr Mellor is currently working on a possible alternative
scheme that might be more acceptable to local residents. However, Fairview New
Homes is continuing with the existing application it submitted on 18th July
2008. It therefore remains to be seen whether or not the company is really
prepared to seriously consider a more acceptable scheme.
On Wednesday 6th August 2008, members of the Cuddington Avenue Advisory Group met with the planning consultant they have retained. Having already undertaken some preliminary investigations, the initial findings presented to the group by the consultant were most encouraging.
Fairview New Homes controversial scheme, which the company applied for planning permission on 18th July 2008, consists of two huge blocks of flats up to 3-storeys high (Block B for 20 'affordable' - i.e., social rented dwellings and Block A for 29 'sheltered accommodation' flats – although this use could easily be changed to social rented housing too). The plan-app number is 08/00603/FUL. Anyone wishing to view the plans can do so at the Town Hall or Bourne Hall Library, during normal opening hours. PLEASE NOTE: The plans do not give a true perspective of the height of the blocks of flats or the extent of overshadowing to nearby residential properties and The Auriol and Mead schools.
URGENT NOTICE: A member of the Advisory Group has noticed that somebody is fly-posting extracts from the SARA website about the planning application on lamp-posts and the notice board in Vale Road/Cuddington Avenue. Members of the Group have already removed the fly-posts and will continue to do so if they reappear. Not only is this practice illegal but it is also a breach of SARA’s copyright (see front page) and liable to civil or criminal prosecution. If anyone observes this illegal fly-posting being carried out, they are urged to notify Police immediately. SARA, Cuddington Avenue Advisory Group and Cuddington RA do not indulge in, or condone, such illegal activities.
29th July 2008:
It was discovered today that Fairview New Homes Ltd submitted a planning application to Epsom & Ewell Borough Council on
18th July 2008 (at a cost of £16,415.00) in respect of the existing proposed scheme, for two blocks of housing (Block A for 29 sheltered dwellings and Block B for 20 'affordable'
- i.e., social rented dwellings). SARA Chairman, Mr Bill Slaughter, commenting on the surprise
and unwelcome about-turn by Fairview New Homes, said, "Apart from the fact that
Fairview New Homes have gone back on their word (subsequently denied by them), given at the meeting we held with them on the 9th July 2008, that they would not submit an application until they had looked at the viability of an alternative housing-led scheme, this means that local residents will now only have until 18th August to submit objections.
I spoke on the telephone today with Mr Stephen Mellor, the Planning Director of Fairview New Homes, as we had already agreed a one-to-one meeting in the near future to look at an outline sketch, currently being prepared, of a revised proposal that would meet the company's financial objectives and might be more acceptable to local residents. This meeting is provisionally scheduled for 8th August.
I would like to be proved wrong but I hold out very little hope that Fairview
New Homes intends to consider anything other than the existing scheme, given the expense the company has already incurred in submitting the existing application. The School Land Advisory Group will hold an emergency meeting on Wednesday 30th July to discuss this unexpected and unwelcome
development."
Mr Keith Lugton, Chairman of SCoRA - the Standing Committee of Residents Associations (the consultative body which all RA's in Epsom & Ewell belong to) - was present at the Cuddington RA public meeting on 5th June 2008 and has issued the following statement in the light of today's news:
" On 5 June 2008 a meeting was held in St Mary's Church Hall hosted by Cuddington Residents' Association. More than 100 residents attended the meeting with the hope of hearing comments from representatives of Fairview New Homes and being able to express their own views. They were very disappointed as the meeting descended into near farce. The Project Manager from Fairview New Homes became incapable of completing a sentence either in his own presentation or in answering questions.
A subsequent private meeting involving representatives of Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents' Association and Cuddington Residents' Association with senior officials of Fairview New Homes seemed to have established a basis for continuing discussion. However while these discussions were taking place Fairview New Homes have submitted the planning application based exactly on the proposal which they were so unable or unwilling to discuss with residents on 5 June.
The behaviour of Fairview New Homes and their unwillingness to listen to anything which is being said by or on behalf of those who are most directly affected by the proposed development has caused grave concern among residents about the suitability of this development and the company which has submitted the planning
application."
RECENT NEWS: On 24th July 2008, immediately following the summer-holiday closure of The Mead School, Fairview New Homes commenced demolition of the old school huts and levelling of the site. The timetable for doing this was agreed with Surrey County Council when the company purchased the land. Following my meeting on 9th July 2008 with Mr Bill Blincoe, Development Director of Fairview New Homes Ltd., I have received a letter from Mr Stephen Mellor, Fairview's Planning Director, who was also present at the meeting. Mr Mellor confirmed that the company is continuing to look at the viability of a family housing led scheme. Although Fairview New Homes has stated that our suggestion of a 15 house scheme would result in a significant financial loss to the company, I am pleased to report that Mr Mellor has offered to meet with me - and I have accepted his offer - to discuss the opportunities for a housing-led approach that would be financially viable for the company whilst eliminating the major concerns expressed by residents. (The exchange of letters can be viewed immediately below the following photograph).
On 24th July 2008, immediately following the summer holiday closure of The Mead School, Fairview New Homes commenced demolition of the old school huts and levelling of the site. The timetable for doing this was agreed with Surrey County Council when the company purchased the land.
I was surprised and disappointed to receive a letter from Mr Blincoe, dated 11th July 2008, in which Mr Blincoe stated that that his inclination is, "at least for the time being to press on with our current program and to look at alternatives as part of a parallel process." This news came as a shock to Ken Robinson, Kelly Reynolds and myself because it was completely at odds with what had been agreed at the meeting, namely that Fairview New Homes would not submit a planning application in respect of their controversial existing scheme, which is opposed by so many residents, until they had carried out an assessment as to whether a house-based alternative scheme could be viable.
As Mr Blincoe only stated in his letter that he was 'inclined' to take this course of action, it should not be assumed that he will necessarily do so. I am pleased to say that Mr Blincoe did confirm that he and his colleagues would spend the next few days looking at the potential to develop an alternative approach to the site based around the provision of houses. I wrote back to Mr Blincoe (copy letter below), thanking him and his colleagues for attending the meeting, pointing out what had actually been agreed at the meeting but also saying that his agreement to conduct an internal assessment regarding the feasibility of an alternative scheme, based around the provision of houses, was most welcome.
Although I have received a brief letter from Mr Blincoe in reply, stating that he does not agree with my version of what went on at the meeting, I was pleased to learn from his first letter that his team has been working over the past few days on the alternative scheme discussed and he assured me that they will be responding to me on this matter very shortly.
BILL
SLAUGHTER'S REPORT ON THE MEETING WITH FAIRVIEW NEW HOMES DIRECTORS ON 9TH JULY
2008:
Following the recent exchange of letters with Fairview New Homes Ltd, I
arranged to
meet with two of their directors and their senior architect, on Wednesday 9th
July. In the temporary absence of Mr Neil Bevan, Cuddington RA was
represented at the meeting by their President, Mr Ken Robinson, and Miss Kelly
Reynolds, a member of
the residents working group. This was a 'meeting of principals' to discuss the concerns raised by residents at Cuddington RA's public meeting on the 5th
June and it was agreed that this meeting would not be open to the public. Depending on the outcome of this meeting, urgent consideration
would then be given to whether a further public meeting at the present time would be desirable.
As previously reported on our website, the meeting was scheduled to take place at St John's Church Hall in Stoneleigh. A number of residents decided to organise a peaceful silent protest outside the church hall to make their objections regarding the proposed development known to the Fairview representatives. The Managing Director, Mr Steven Casey, who had obtained a copy of the flyer circulated to local residents advising them of the demonstration, wrote to me saying that the presence of demonstrators outside the meeting would put his employees "personal safety at risk" and that he had instructed his team not to attend as he was "not prepared to put at risk the welfare" of his staff.
Having attempted unsuccessfully to speak to Mr Casey, I was contacted by Mr Peter Cobb, a Fairview New Homes main board director, who was not even prepared to accept the reassurance that a Police presence would be requested, if he so required it. Mr Cobb would only agree to send representatives to the meeting if it was relocated to a secret venue, known only to the six people due to attend it. Fortunately, I was able to arrange for the meeting to take place in Bourne Hall at a slightly later time on the same evening, in order that I could go and speak to the demonstrators assembled at the original venue, to explain the situation.
The meeting went well initially and the grave misgivings of residents regarding the size and character of the development, as well as the unacceptably high density of dwellings proposed, were made very clear to the Fairview representatives. One of the principal concerns, that a number of rooms in the social housing development would overlook The Mead Infant School's playground, was very clearly set out. We were therefore delighted when Mr William Blincoe, the senior Fairview director present at the meeting, agreed to carry out an internal assessment to look at the potential of developing an alternative approach to the site, based around the provision of houses, before proceeding to submit a planning application for the existing scheme proposal. This undertaking, although only a verbal one, was given to me by Mr Blincoe in the presence of my colleagues, Mr Ken Robinson and Miss Kelly Reynolds. All three of us were delighted with this agreement and I made a point of expressing my appreciation both at the meeting and in statements to the Epsom Guardian and Epsom Post (see press articles below), in which I said, "This shows a commendable degree of goodwill" on the part of Fairview New Homes.
RECENT
DEVELOPMENTS:
A peaceful protest on the 9th July by
around fifty Cuddington residents opposed to a property development company’s plans to build scores of flats for rented social housing right next door to The Mead Infant school in Cuddington Avenue was thwarted when the company, Fairview New Homes, pulled out of a meeting with the chairman of a local residents’ association just 36 hours before the meeting was due to take place at the Parish Room in St John’s Church Hall in Stoneleigh.
Fairview New Homes Managing Director, Steven Casey, claimed in a letter to Mr Bill Slaughter, the Chairman of Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents’ Association (SARA), that the presence of demonstrators outside the meeting would put his employees “personal safety at risk.” Mr Slaughter was forced to hurriedly arrange an alternative venue nearby so that the Fairview representatives could attend in secret and preserve their anonymity. Bill Slaughter, who arranged the private meeting with directors of Fairview New Homes, had been appointed to represent the concerns expressed by more than one hundred residents at a public meeting hosted by Cuddington Residents Association on 5th June 2008.
Before travelling to the re-scheduled meeting, Mr Slaughter met with a deputation from the protestors at the original venue and explained that the two Fairview New Homes directors and their architect had been instructed by Mr Casey not to attend the meeting, because he was “not prepared to put at risk the welfare” of his staff. Mr Slaughter told the assembled protestors that it was clear that the Managing Director of the company and Peter Cobb, the Group Main Board Director whom he had spoken with, were both in complete ignorance as to the dignity and integrity of local residents. Mr Slaughter told the protestors that the company’s suggestion that the safety of their employees would be at risk was “farcical and deeply insulting.”
SARA Chairman, Bill Slaughter, meets a deputation from the protestors to explain that he had been forced to Mr Slaughter said, “Despite believing it to be completely unnecessary, I offered to request a Police presence to guarantee safe access to my meeting with the Fairview directors. Even this offer was rejected and I was forced to re-schedule the meeting to take place at Bourne Hall. If Fairview New Homes cannot put their trust in our excellent local policing it is hardly surprising that local residents are unwilling to trust Fairview New Homes. In the end, only the guarantee of a secret revised meeting location was acceptable to Fairview and, in order that the meeting could go ahead as planned, I was forced to make those arrangements.”
relocate the meeting to a secret venue as Fairview New Homes directors had refused to attend at the original
venue, citing the reason as fears for “their personal safety.”
Some of the protestors that Fairview directors had refused to pass on their way into the private meeting.
The message to Fairview New Homes from local residents could not be any clearer.
Bill Slaughter, who was accompanied at the private meeting by a representative from the residents’ working group and Mr Ken Robinson, the President of Cuddington RA, said, “I spoke at length with a deputation from the protestors who had assembled outside the original meeting venue. It was crystal clear that many of the protestors are parents or grandparents of young children who are either already attending The Mead Infant School or will be doing so in the future. They are gravely concerned that a number of the proposed social housing dwellings will overlook the Infant School’s playground.”
The letter from Mr William Blincoe of Fairview New Homes:
The letter from Mr Steven Casey, Managing Director of Fairview New Homes:
BACKGROUND: Following the recent exchange of letters with Fairview New Homes Ltd, SARA Chairman, Mr Bill Slaughter has arranged to meet with two directors and the commissioning architect of Fairview New Homes Ltd. In the temporary absence of their Chairman, Mr Neil Bevan, Cuddington RA will be represented at the meeting by their President, Mr Ken Robinson, and a member of the residents working group. The meeting, will take place on Wednesday 9th July at 8.00pm in the Parish Room of St John's Church Hall in Station Approach, Stoneleigh.
This will be a 'meeting of principals' to discuss the concerns raised by residents at Cuddington RA's public meeting on the 5th June. Although it was agreed that this meeting will not be open to the public, Mr Slaughter will be pleased to raise specific concerns of residents if you e-mail or write to him with your comments prior to the meeting. Depending on the outcome of this meeting, urgent consideration will then be given to whether a further public meeting at the present time would be desirable.
HISTORY: With SARA's support, Cuddington Residents’ Association hosted a well-attended meeting at St Mary’s Church Hall on the 5th June, to give local residents a chance to have their say about the highly contentious development proposal in Cuddington Avenue by Fairview New Homes Ltd. At the public meeting, SARA's Chairman, Mr Bill Slaughter, was appointed to represent the concerns of residents.
Following the public meeting attended by representatives of Fairview New Homes Ltd, Cuddington RA’s Chairman, Neil Bevan, wrote a strongly worded letter of complaint on behalf of both RA’s to the Managing Director of Fairview New Homes Ltd about the abysmal presentation provided.
Mr Slaughter has replied to both letters received from Fairview New Homes Ltd and accepted an offer to meet with their directors and architect.
The exchange of letters is shown below:
The second letter received from Fairview New Homes Ltd, appears below:
The reply from Fairview
New Homes Ltd to Neil Bevan's letter:
Text of the letter from Neil Bevan to the Managing Director of Fairview Homes:
Mr Stephen Casey
Managing Director
Fairview Homes Ltd
50 Lancaster Road
Enfield
Middx EN2 0BY
9th June 2008
Dear Mr Casey
On behalf of my fellow Chairman, Mr Bill Slaughter of Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents’ Association (SARA) and my own Association, Cuddington RA, I wish to bring to your personal attention the disastrous circumstances of the meeting which took place last Thursday evening.
We invited your team to address a public meeting, attended by more than one hundred concerned local residents, regarding the proposed development on former school land purchased by your company from Surrey County Council. Invited guests in attendance included all five borough councillors from the two local wards as well as the Surrey County Council councillor for the division. Also in attendance were the Presidents and Chairmen of both Associations, together with a number of senior officers. We had hired a large hall in correct anticipation of the substantial number of residents who would be likely to attend.
To our utmost dismay, having welcomed and introduced the representatives from your company, from the outset there was no verbal presentation at all and the visual communication (consisting of seven white boards, in the wrong order) could not be seen by more than 5% of those in attendance. Your Project Manager, Euguar, froze completely and could not put a single coherent sentence together whilst Hayley, your Communications Manager, did not say a word throughout the visit. Your Consulting Architect, Garnash, did attempt to answer some questions but either got the answers wrong or gave answers that were ludicrously evasive or misleading.
It quickly became obvious that your entire team was incapable of making any significant and worthwhile contribution to the meeting. Their presentation - or, more accurately - complete lack of any presentation, was so bad that several residents requested that they leave and indeed, when I put this to the vote, 90% of those present agreed that they should do so. Despite their risible lack of preparation, your team was thanked, and even applauded politely, for turning up.
Fairview Homes lost all credence with the public last Thursday evening and I would suggest that either another public meeting, or a meeting between principals, takes place as a matter of urgency. Certainly, should your company put forward a planning application in accordance with your present scheme, objections to the proposed development would run into hundreds.
For your information and to summarise; the main unanswered and unresolved objections were as follows:
1) Residents will not accept a development so completely out of character with the surrounding area
2) Residents will not accept the high density of dwellings (almost twice the Government's PPS3 guidelines) and inadequate parking places under the same guidelines.
3) Residents will not accept 2.5 or 3-storey buildings which would look into the bedrooms of the flats above the shops and into the school's playground.
4) Residents recognize that the dilapidated site would benefit from sympathetic re-development but would look far more kindly on a small scheme comprising of semi-detached homes, for sale by private treaty, in character with the residential properties on the opposite side of the road.
The abysmal showing by your representatives is already in the public domain and likely to attract further adverse public comment. I therefore hope that you will give your personal and urgent consideration to the problem and work rapidly with us to resolve it.
Yours sincerely
Neil Bevan
Chairman
Cuddington Residents’ Association
HISTORY:
More than one hundred residents from Cuddington and Auriol wards packed St. Mary’s Church Hall on Thursday 5th June to express their anger about the proposed housing development on land in Cuddington Avenue that was formerly occupied by The Mead School.
The well-attended meeting was arranged by Cuddington Residents Association, with support from Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents’ Association (SARA). All five RA borough councillors from both Cuddington and Auriol Wards, together with the Surrey County Council RA councillor for the division, were present.
Three representatives from Fairview Homes, the property development company that recently concluded the highly-contentious purchase of the surplus school land from Conservative-controlled Surrey County Council, attended to give a presentation on the proposed development and answer resident’s questions.
The meeting opened with a welcome by Cuddington RA’s Chairman, Neil Bevan, who introduced the property developer’s representatives. Almost immediately the meeting descended into near farce when the Fairview Homes’ Project Manager became completely tongue-tied and couldn’t remember what he had come to say! Visually, the property company’s entire presentation consisted of seven 4’x3’ white boards that were not even in sequential order and could not be seen by more than 5% of those present!
When it became clear that the Project Manager was incapable of putting a sentence together, Neil Bevan wisely decided to open up the meeting as a Question and Answer session. This allowed those present to put questions to the scheme’s architect. Whilst no planning application has been submitted as yet, a formal application - to build 49 flats with 35 parking spaces - is expected to be lodged with the borough council next month.
Cuddington RA intends to lodge a strong complaint with the Chairman of Fairview Homes in respect of the non-existent preparation and abysmal presentation by Fairview Homes staff - which included their Communications Officer, who did not utter a single word throughout the entire evening!
STATEMENTS BY LOCAL RESIDENTS’
ASSOCIATION BOROUGH COUNCILLOR AND RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION COUNTY COUNCILLOR:
Auriol Ward RA Councillor, Robert Leach, writes:
Surrey County Council has sold off a parcel of land of just under half a hectare
(about one acre) at the junction of Cuddington Avenue and Vale Road, opposite
The Gamecock public house. The land is part of the island site occupied by Mead
and Auriol schools. In 2004, Surrey County Executive declared this land surplus
to requirements. Although not happy about this sale, the Residents Association
councillors acknowledge that Surrey County Council, like all local authorities,
has a statutory responsible not to retain land no longer needed for its
requirements.
The buildings which occupied this site were constructed as temporary buildings
and have long exceeded their economic life. The buildings have been difficult to
heat and maintain. They also contain asbestos. Proper arrangements have been
made to seal the site and for demolition to be undertaken properly during school
holidays.
The sale of the land was made at the same time as extensive improvements to both
schools, but was not made to fund those improvements. Indeed the cost of
improving the schools significantly exceeded the receipt for the land. As part
of these improvements, the school field suffered damaged. This has now been
ploughed and reseeded so it may be used again for school purposes. There are no
plans to sell any more school land or erect any more buildings on the site. Two
successful bids have been made to reduce the amount of land sold.
Although this piece of land is in Auriol Ward, it adjoins Cuddington Ward and
impacts on many residents of that ward. For this reason, we have co-operated
with the councillors from Cuddington Ward also. The land has been sold to
Fairview Homes who intend to build dwellings on this site. This company has
already contacted the council and councillors to get an indication of what is
acceptable. The company also organised a public display at 2nd Cuddington Scout
Hall for residents. The company is legally obliged to provide an amount of
“affordable accommodation”. This is not council housing, but ordinary
housing where there are special arrangements to allow it to be occupied by those
who could not afford to buy it as commercial housing.
At the beginning of May 2008, no planning application had been received by the
developers. When such an application is received, it will be made known to local
residents. The application will be heard in public at the Town Hall, and not
decided by planning officers in private. All residents will have the opportunity
to examine the plans at the Town Hall, at Bourne Hall or by using the
council’s website. Every resident has the right to comment on the application
by letter or e-mail. Such comments should be confined to planning matters.
Planning concerns may include parking, overdevelopment, being out of character,
highway safety and loss of privacy. The extent to which these matters and any
others may be relevant is a matter for residents to form their own views, and
for councillors to determine on the basis of what is presented to them by the
developer.
It must be stressed that councillors are legally barred from expressing an
opinion on a planning application before it is heard. This does not stop other
officers or members of the Residents Association from expressing any opinion
they wish, nor does it prevent councillors from commenting after the decision
has been made. Many residents have already expressed their views to local
councillors. We thank them for these comments, and assure them that all such
comments will be considered in making the decision.
Epsom North Division RA County Councillor, Jean Smith, writes:
I am keenly aware of the many objections from local residents in Cuddington and
Auriol Wards about plans to develop the land along Cuddington Avenue fronting
these two schools. When a planning application is lodged it will be with the
Borough Council which is the planning authority. Borough Councillors Graham
Dudley for Cuddington Ward and Robert Leach for Auriol Ward sit on the Planning
Committee.
As for the actual sale of the land, I have been surprised to receive messages
from some residents claiming not to have been told anything about this. I should
therefore like to remind residents that the Conservative County Executive
declared this land surplus to requirements and therefore for sale in 2004 and
plans were put forward to extend and improve both schools.
I organised a public meeting so that local residents would be informed and
consulted. This meeting was held on the 8th November 2004 in Bourne Hall. I sent
letters announcing this to residents in Newbury Gardens, Vale Road, Cuddington
Avenue, Cudas Close and Westways. The meeting was well attended. I received the
support of both Cuddington RA and Stoneleigh and Auriol RA in opposing the sale
of the land at that time.
The position at the end of 2007 was that both Residents’ Associations, and the
governing bodies and head teachers of both schools removed opposition to the
sale of the land since it was felt that there was sufficient playing field areas
and the schools had been improved. Indeed the schools would find having to
maintain the surplus land a financial burden on their budgets.
I share residents’ concerns about the nature of the proposed development but
am confident that both Cllrs. Dudley and Leach can be relied upon to make sure
that whatever is permitted reflects the views of local residents.