Back garden planning alert - Chipstead Way, Banstead

I'd like to draw your attention to a back garden development scheme of 6 houses next to the Green Belt in Banstead.

Planning application Ref 17/00385/OUT

http://planning.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OLHBJRMVLGJ00

This will result in loss of trees and bring houses up to the edge of the Green Belt in Banstead.

Please object ASAP. Deadline is April 12th. Suggested planning points to copy into your objection are:

List of objections to Planning Application Ref: 17/00385/OUT:

1. Planning application contains material inconsistencies, inaccurate information and misleading and contradictory statements, undermining its validity
2. Out of character with the surrounding area
3. Adverse affect on amenity of adjoining properties and their gardens
4. Materially detrimental to the acknowledged character and amenity of the area
5. Does not maintain existing pattern and form of local development
6. Unprecedented and alien form of development of garden land by greenbelt
7. Plot sizes and spacings too dense and do not reflect those of surrounding area. Overlooking, overshadowing, loss of privacy and obtrusiveness/loss of light for adjoining properties esp. No. 222 side habitable room. New houses not subservient to existing ones but larger and bulkier, massing effect. Cramped form of development and overdevelopment. Forms abrupt edge to greenbelt
8. Lack of appropriate transition to Green Belt – higher density of houses at rear
9. Access road creates an undue disruption to the character and appearance of existing road frontage. Road too narrow and creates noise and light pollution
10. Fails to protect and enhance the natural, built and historic environment. Fails to preserve general woodland character of area
11. Adverse ecological impact: harm and loss of endangered and protected species
12. Does not retain or enhance the landscapes, visual amenity or biodiversity
13. Gardens not under-utilised but provide valuable amenity value
14. Unsustainable form of development – worsens area not enhances it. Does not add affordable housing
15. Access road hazard to highway safety and increased risk of accidents for vehicles and pedestrians
16. Loss and destruction of existing hedgerows and trees/adverse ecological impact
17. Increased crime fears due to accessibility from Green Belt
18. Destruction of wildlife habitat for roman snails, bats, slow worms, dormice, wild birds, toads, stag beetle, frogs, badgers, hedgehogs, newts, lizards  and other wildlife and flora and fauna
19. Loss/harm to trees in the vicinity, including in Green Belt and in adjoining properties. Will make new houses visible from the greenbelt for many miles around due to loss of trees on boundary
20. Increase in noise, smell, disturbance, light pollution.
21. Flooding risk of neighbouring properties in Manor Way and Lakers Rise at bottom of hill due to sloping site and increased rainwater run-off
22. Adverse effect on amenity from adjoining Green Belt/threat of future expansion onto MGB land/not most effective use of land
23. Does not enhance local character or distinctiveness – makes it worse
24. Destruction of character house at no.224 to be replaced with inferior design
25. Does not retain, protect or preserve local gardens of interest
26. Irreversible harm to nearby Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Ancient Woodland, Area of Great Landscape Value and Green Belt
27. Adds to strain on existing infrastructure/inadequate parking leading to displacement/Poor internal and external design, appearance and materials not in keeping with existing character
28. Contrary to Local Plan, National Planning Policy Framework and Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act
29. Insufficient detail submitted re material planning considerations including impact on biodiversity/protected species, design and measurements of access road
30. Land is not brown field but garden land and was previously green belt. Applicant has not demonstrated that back gardens are no longer green belt.
31. Dog-leg development with turning area adjacent to 222 boundary.
32. The proposal is contrary inter alia to the Government Planning Policy Statement PPS7, Reigate & Banstead 2014 Core Strategy Objectives nos. SO4, SO6, SO7, SO8, SO9, SO10,SO11 and SO14, the National Planning Policy Framework, Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan Policies Co 1,Ho 3, Ho 4, Ho 9, Ho 10, Ho 12, Ho 13, Ho 14 and Ho 16, Pc4 and Pc10 and the stated aims of the Core Strategy 2012-27 which provides for no development in this area. The proposal conflicts with the aims of Planning Policies on Green Belts, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Areas of Great Landscape Value, Special Areas of Conservation, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Sites of Nature Conservation Importance, Potential Sites of Nature Conservation Importance, Local Nature Conservation Interest, Woodlands, Tree Protection and Countryside Management and advice in British standard 5837:2005 “Trees in Relation to Construction – Recommendations”. The proposal is in violation of PPS9, the Reigate & Banstead Local Distinctiveness Guide 2004 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.The proposal violates the Human Rights Act.  Its impact on the area’s wildlife could contravene the 1979 Bern Convention, the Bonn Convention, the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1998, the 1997 hedgerows Regulations, the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
33. Application is for outline permission but ignores material considerations including wildlife, road safety, flood risk, drainage and detailed site layout which are not reserved matters.
34. Loss of tree outside no. 224 will adversely affect the character and appearance of Chipstead Way, with linear layout and trees at regular distances
35. New houses will have roof terraces which will result in loss of privacy, overlooking of neighbours due to site layout and sloping. Also loss of trees shielding the greenbelt since the roof terraces will afford a view across the green belt
36. New houses will be visible from Chipstead Way and spoil the street scene
37. Loss of mature hedgerows and associated protected wildlife
38. Risk to trees protected by TPO of post-development damage and harm during construction works
39. Create a dangerous and unwelcome precedent for future garden grabbing
40. Design of buildings looks industrial, not residential and is alien to the area
41. Access road is too narrow and reversing distances are too long for refuse lorries, per Reigate & Banstead Council's May 2016 document entitled "Making Space for Waste Management in New Developments -  Recycling & Refuse Waste Storage and Collection Guidance" Annex C .
42. Not classified as a windfall site. Not suitable for development.

Let's ensure we preserve the character of the area. Many thanks for your help!