The Public Inquiry concerning the redevelopment of 1-9 Cross Road covered 2½ gruelling days. STAG and the TWRA presented strong evidence against the proposals. This is what we said on your behalf, in our final address to the Planning Inspector:

STAG - FINAL SUMMING UP

The role of voluntary groups in society is often underestimated, however is now becoming more recognised. Volunteers are unpaid, and their actions and motives are not motivated by anything except a desire to serve other and give something to the community. As a group, STAG as with the Tadworth & Walton Residents' Association (TWRA), are motivated solely for the benefit of our community, there is no margin involved. Some of us have given up a year of our lives to work on this campaign. The question is why? This is explained by the contents of our summing up. This is what we and the community passionately believe, because we are looking to the long term future, not what is good for now.

We are very disappointed that a large company with vast resources should feel the need to use of misleading artist’s impressions, drawings and photos and also the lack of usable green space. Surely the elderly residents deserve some quiet garden area to sit out and chat to their friends. The way in which this company has ignored local input and opinion throughout the whole process, gives the impression that CRL holds us all in contempt.

If you can catch one of Tadworth’s “senior retireds”, like Mr Chiles an ex Mayor of Reigate & Banstead, as they roar off somewhere, they will tell you it is impractical to give up their cars – as a village, we have no taxi rank. Without a car residents cannot return in the evening from the theatres and cinemas in Sutton, Redhill, Reigate and Epsom, they cannot visit the local beauty spots of Headley, Boxhill and Polesdon Lacey or take a leisurely lunch at Denbies Vineyard in Dorking. Surely these are the sort of pleasures which our wonderful elderly people deserve and should be encouraged to enjoy.

In Tadworth we currently have a viable community in fine balance. Our schools and shops are successful, residents can walk to the station to commute to work, however traffic and parking have reached critical levels. This fine balance is under threat and needs to be protected – what we do need is small houses, for all age groups, not more retirement homes. This development is not needed and it does nothing for the future and vibrancy of our community – but above all, it has no place in the centre of Tadworth village.

The appellant wrote in a letter to the planning department dated 15 December 2006…. “The proposed development is a unique opportunity to provide for the redevelopment of a currently underutilised brownfield site in an extremely sustainable location. The use of the site for residential development is wholly appropriate and the design of the proposal will enhance the character and appearance of the area.” We have shown, along with the planning officer Mr Davies and Gillian Hein of TWRA, that this development is wholly inappropriate for the centre of our village, and it will harm the character and appearance of the area. It is a monolithic structure, barely relieved by so-called articulation, dwarfing the existing height and profile of the current street scene by up to 5 metres.

Churchill Retirement Living (CRL) stated in a circular to local residents in January 2007 that “sheltered accommodation (Category II) for older people represents an acknowledged need in the area”. We argue, and have provided local professional evidence, that not only is there no need in Tadworth, there is a current oversupply. The appellant has recently completed a retirement home in Sutton (as have their competitors in Sutton and Banstead) and is currently planning developments in the local towns of Wallington, Epsom and Dorking. All of these developments (and others in Surrey) are of a considerably lesser size than that proposed for our small village yet have populations many times larger than Tadworth. These town environments are well suited to large facilities, but will further exacerbate the general over-supply problem in the area.

The department of government and local communities recently announced that too many flats are being built; as a result the price of houses has rocketed. Recent government figures show that the price of a family house has risen at eight times the rate of a new flat since 2000. Our young people are being totally priced out of the market. Once these family houses are destroyed we cannot put them back and we could be left with a ‘white elephant’ of mammoth proportions. It may be said that this is the appellant’s risk, but by then it is too late, the damage to our small village would be irreversible so it is our risk – and the appellant has consistently turned a deaf ear to our concerns based on local knowledge and experience. The views of local people have been expressed very clearly by our witnesses, backed up by 2,300 signatures to a petition. There were also over 850 letters to the local planners and 595 to the inspectorate. We fully support Michael Buttery our local councillor, in everything he argued in his statement, Mr Chiles, Mrs Hein and Mrs Walkling. In particular that a more suitable use of this site would be small affordable family houses, of which we have none in Tadworth village.

We would like to draw your attention to the fact that in Tadworth we are at this moment working on a village design statement, which will assist our LPA in determining the size, design and character of future developments. The Urban Design Compendium states; “Part of the urban design lexicon is the “genius loci”, the prevalent feeling of place. Perceptions of place are made up of layers of understanding – the settlement in the landscape, its overall structure, the district, the street, the building. They arise from understanding the physical and human geography, the history and morphology of past uses, the natural landscape and buildings, both on a site and around it.” It is this concept of ‘ sense of place’ that epitomises the feelings of the local people; Tadworth Village is their place and the sense which they attach to it comes from a combination of the history, the character and identity, the vibrant village centre and the right mix of community.

The people of Tadworth are passionate about where they live and feel very fortunate to have the advantage of such a successful small community. PPS3 recommends that: “Local authorities should turn down proposals which undermine mixed communities or community cohesion.” We currently enjoy the benefit of both a mixed and cohesive community, evidenced by the massive objection to the appellant’s proposal. We are asking the inspector to support both our planners and our local residents and reject this proposed development because:

• It will change the character of the village and detract from our ‘sense of place’

• It will exacerbate problems with parking and congestion and will threaten our local shops.

• It will threaten the fine balance of our community and local cohesion.

• There is an under supply of small low cost homes and oversupply of retirement facilities in the area; it is neither needed nor wanted by the community

• In the current context of Tadworth Village the proposal is not viable.

• It will create a precedent and lead to the ‘domino effect’ where the centre of the village would become a ‘flatted area’ – the ‘first nail in the coffin’ of Tadworth as a village

• Developers cannot be allowed to ride roughshod over the democratic will of local people and the decisions of planners with local knowledge and expertise

Over the past few years the perception of damage to the environment and the impact of the human footprint have entered mainstream culture. We all have a responsibility for the future of our planet and what we leave for our children and that starts in our own backyards. The Tadworth Village community take this responsibility very seriously.

Sir, you have studied our evidence, listened to our witnesses and read the hundreds of letters from the local people – this is the value of local knowledge. Your decision will have a major impact on our future generations and we are asking you to dismiss the appellant’s appeal, and their whole concept of an appropriate development, and support the local residents and our local council in their battle to ensure the future of Tadworth Village.