Agenda item

19/02559/F - The Epiphany House, Mansfield Drive, Merstham, Redhill, RH1 3JP

The demolition of the existing properties and the erection of ten houses, comprising 2 x 2 bed and 4 x 3 bed terraced houses, 2 x 3 bed semi-detached and 2 x 4 bed detached houses, with associated access and parking. As amended on 20/01/2020,12/02/2020 and on 16/03/2020.

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application at The Epiphany House, Mansfield Drive, Merstham, Redhill for the demolition of the existing properties and the erection of ten houses, comprising 2 x 2 bed and 4 x 3 bed terraced houses, 2 x 3 bed semi-detached and 2 x 4 bed detached houses, with associated access and parking. As amended on 20/01/2020,12/02/2020 and on 16/03/2020.

 

Aled Roderick Director of the U.K. Gospel Church, spoke in objection to the application stating that when the application was determined last year significant weight was placed on Part A of the DMP Policy which required reasonable attempts to be made to sell the property under its existing use at a price that genuinely reflected market value. The U.K. Gospel Church had since submitted a Red Book valuation, which together with its earlier valuation came to a figure of £770,000. The Council accepted a valuation of £1.2 million which they considered in excess of the genuine market value and therefore INF2 had not been complied with due to the site’s overvaluation during the marketing period.

 

When the application was considered by Members in November 2020, the Council had not released key information regarding its valuation process. This meant the U.K. Gospel Church did not have the opportunity to comment and this led to a successful legal challenge which quashed the Council’s decision. On the eve of this meeting, officers had advised that Part A of INF2 should be disregarded as there were sufficient local facilities and because the U.K. Gospel Church did not make representations to the DMP. This change in policy approach occurred after the Church submitted its Red Book valuation, frustrating the ability for continued community use. Furthermore, the U.K. Gospel Church had contacted the Diocese of Southwark on a number of occasions in 2018 expressing interest in the site but did not receive a response and this demand for the site was not properly considered at the consultation stage of the DMP. Members were urged to refuse the application or defer a decision to allow the site to be marketed at a genuine price.

 

Robert Turner, the agent, spoke in support of the application, stating that the it had been approved in November 2020 however the U.K. Gospel Church sought a judicial review and the High Court quashed the Council’s original decision.  The Church’s main reason for carrying out this action was due to the Council not disclosing background documents on its website. Turnbull agreed to the publication of the documents, including its agreement to the quashing order. 

 

A further Red Book valuation was carried out on behalf of the U.K. Gospel Church.  Turnbull provided a response to the Council and this included a rebuttal and there were concerns with the new valuation report.  A further rebuttal was provided by the Gospel Church, but Turnbull were not aware of this or provided any details.

 

Turnbull have been fully compliant with the requirements of INF2, Annex 3, and RED4 of the DMP.  It was considered and accepted by the Council that the loss of the community facility would not result in a shortfall of local provision, and there were no requirements for a replacement community use. There was an Urban Allocation for residential use, with up to 10 units. The U.K. Gospel Church had the opportunity to submit a reasonable offer for the site and the reasons for it being rejected were accepted by the Council. Given the considerable information provided and steps taken, this application should be approved. 

 

RESOLVED that, the application be GRANTED as per recommendation with additional informative to state:

 

The applicant is encouraged to consider transplanting and replanting the trees shown to be removed.

Supporting documents: