Oxted & Limpsfield Residents

P O Box 233 email [email protected] Oxted Post Office Station Road West website www.oxtedlimpsfieldresidents.co.uk Oxted RH8 9EH

17 June 2021

Planning Inspectorate Room Kite Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

RE: APPEAL REF: APP/M3645/W/21/3272384 SITE: Land off Oxted Road (A25), Oxted APPLICATION: TA/2020/690

We write to you as the three District Councillors for the ward where this site is located.

This document explains the main areas with which we disagree with the Appellant’s Statement of Case. Councillor Catherine Sayer wishes to speak at the Public Inquiry.

1. It is common ground that the application is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and so we believe that the key issue is whether the harm to the Green Belt and any other harms are clearly outweighed by Very Special Circumstances, in this case, the need for a new crematorium at Barrow Green Road.

2. The Appellant’s Statement of Case (SoC) paragraph 4.6 confirms that this need is the “nub of the case”, and so we start our representation by explaining why we conclude that the Appellant has not demonstrated a need for a new crematorium at Barrow Green Road.

Page 1 of 16 3. We then explain why we conclude that the harms to the Green Belt and any other harms -- which includes harm to the character of the area and to the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) -- arising from this proposal are more significant than put forward in the Appellant’s SoC and the Document:LVIA.

4. We conclude that there are no Very Special Circumstances that clearly outweigh these harms, and so we believe that the Appeal should be Dismissed.

Documents

Public Inquiry Documents referenced in this representation:

A6: Site Search Appraisal for 2020/690 B3: Planning Officer’s Report dated 20th July 2020 C19: Oxted and Limpsfield Residents Group – 11 May 2020 D1: National Planning Policy Framework D2: Planning Practice Guidance D6: Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008 D7: Tandridge Local Plan: Part - Detailed Policies 2014 F1: Reigate and Banstead Officer’s Report re: objection to Application 2020/690 (Oxted Rd) – 7th July 2020 G14: Need Assessment by Horizon Cremation Ltd – February 2021 G15: Need Assessment Errata – March 2021 G14 and G15 include and supplement the information in A5 and A53 which were the needs documents submitted in the original application 2020/690, and so we focus only on G14 and G15 in this representation. J12: Site Search Appraisal for 2021/258 G2-G8: LVIA and LVIA Appendices

Other documents we reference which we have appended to this representation:

Appendix A: Catchment Area extract from the Woodhatch Road Need Assessment Executive Summary which is one of the planning application documents for Reigate and Banstead Borough Council Planning Application 21/00192/F.

Page 2 of 16 Needs assessment rebuttal

5. We have structured our rebuttal to the Appellant’s Needs Assessment (Document G14) to answer two questions1: a. whether there are a sufficient number of deaths in Tandridge to justify a new crematorium at Barrow Green Road, and if not, b. whether Barrow Green Road is the most appropriate location to meet crematorium need arising in these nearby districts.

Is there a sufficient number of deaths in Tandridge to justify a new crematorium at Barrow Green Road?

6. We conclude that the majority of Barrow Green crematorium “slots” will be used by those who are resident in other districts. We show this using the total number of deaths in Tandridge, crematorium capacity, and minimum population viability thresholds.

7. Document G14: Table 2 shows 863 deaths in Tandridge projected for 2021, of which, on average, 81%, or 699, will be cremated using the percentages provided in Document G14: paragraph 3.2. The ONS also projects that the average number of deaths per year in Tandridge between 2019 and 2043 is 9752, which would equal an average of 790 cremations per year. By 2041, the annual number of deaths is equal to 1091, which equals 884 annual cremations.

8. Document G14: Paragraph 4.17 explains that there are two crematorium “capacity” metrics – the core slots available in a year figure of 2,016 and the 80% “peak” adjustment which equals a figure of 1,613.

9. Using these figures and assuming that all Tandridge residents will use Barrow Green Road, the very best case is that Tandridge residents will use between 34% (699/2016) and 43% (699/1613) of the Barrow Green crematorium.

1 We understand that catchment areas are not limited by local authority boundaries. Using these boundaries allows the use of nationally recognised statistics which include population/death projections. This ensures transparency of the figures and any conclusions derived using them. 2 2018 ONS Sub-National Population Projections – Table 5: Components of Change (Births, Deaths and Migration) by Local Authority.

Page 3 of 16 Using the projected average number of deaths over 20 years, usage would be between 37% (640/2016) and 39% (640/1613). By 2041, capacity usage would still be between 44% (884/2016) and 55% (884/1613).

10. This is the very best case usage because it assumes a completely unrealistic scenario that all residents of Tandridge will use the Barrow Green Road facility, despite the fact that other facilities are closer, such as the Surrey and Sussex, Oak Tree Farm, Bluebell Farm and potentially Turners Hill and/or Woodhatch Road should they be permitted.

11. Furthermore, our reading of a number of Appeal Decision letters includes references to an industry “rule of thumb” 150,000 minimum population viability threshold3. The current estimated population of Tandridge is 87,500, which is just 58% of that minimum viability threshold. While we recognise that viability is not the same as need, this is another factor showing the extent to which the Barrow Green Road facility will be dependent on deaths in other districts.

12. Document G14: Need Assessment: Paragraph 2.10 explains that only 64,500 out of the total population of Tandridge live in an area that is more than a 30- minute drive of an existing or permitted crematorium. This is lower than the more generous total population figures used in the above analysis, and so the results would be even lower, further weakening the needs case put forward by the Appellant.

13. The above analysis confirms that most of the slots will be used by those outside of Tandridge. This indicates that there is an insufficient number of deaths in Tandridge to justify a new crematorium at Barrow Green Road even making the very best – albeit entirely unrealistic -- assumption that all Tandridge residents would be cremated at Barrow Green Road in the future.

3 For example, Appeal APP/N4720/W/19/3233784: Land at Garforth Golf Range, Long Lane, Garforth, Leeds, Paragraphs 13 “the appellants refer to an industry guideline that the population served by a crematorium should be 150,000. I note that this has also been referred to in other appeal decisions.”

Page 4 of 16 14. Even if there was a sufficent number of deaths in Tandridge, Document A6: Site Search Appraisal, explains that a location in the north of the district – which is the most densely populated part of Tandridge4 – would better serve Tandridge residents. Document A6: Site Search Appraisal paragraph 3.6 states: 3.6 When looking at sites within Tandridge we concentrated on areas to the north of the District, because the bulk of the population lives in that area and because it is the area least well served. The further south people live in Tandridge District, the easier it is for them to get to Surrey and Sussex Crematorium at Reigate [ed: sic]. It is also the case that a more northerly site in the District captures a greater numer of people who are currently more than a 30-minute drive time from an existing crematorium.

15. These comments indicate that even the Appellant appears to recognise that the Barrow Green Road site is not the most appropriate.

16. For the reasons above, we conclude that there are an insufficient number of deaths in Tandridge to justify a new crematorium at Barrow Green Road.

Is Barrow Green Road the most appropriate location to meet the needs of these other districts?

17. This section explains how we conclude that all parts of the Barrow Green Road catchment area are better served by existing/new/pending proposals located in districts adjoining Tandridge.

18. First, Document G14: Needs Assessment, Table 27 shows (reproduced here for convenience) that 100% of the Tandridge population is already covered by existing facilities.

19. Document G14: Need Assessment, paragraph 559 defines “natural catchment” as catchment “constrained only when a catchment abuts the

4 Document B3: Officer Report, paragraph 112

Page 5 of 16 catchment of another crematoria”. This removes the distortion of overlapping catchments by essentially allocating each person in Tandridge to an existing crematoria. This 100% coverage of the Tandridge population improves when newly permitted and pending facilities are considered as shown later in this analysis.

20. Second, we have reproduced (for convenience) Document G14: Figure 2 which shows existing facilities and permitted Oak Tree Farm (but not the now permitted Bluebell Farm crematorium, or proposed Turner’s Hill or proposed Woodhatch Road), the 30 minute cortege catchment area in red, and standard drive time in blue.

Figure 1: Document G14: Figure 2

21. There are three points to understand when looking at the above figure: a. First, Document B3: Officer Report, paragraph 111 explains that Tandridge is a rural district with a small population where settlements are scattered within large areas of the Green Belt, particularly in the central and southern areas. Tandridge is also surrounded by authorities with much larger populations at higher densities, which

Page 6 of 16 include major towns and commercial centres. Table 1 shows the population of Tandridge and nearby districts and includes a relative size index (population/population_Tandridge). The difference in populations is significant.

Table 1: 2018 SNPP population of Tandridge and adjoining local authorities

b. Second, this highly skewed population distribution means that most of the Barrow Green catchment area is sparsely populated except towards the perimeter. This perimeter also extends beyond Tandridge to these more densely populated local authorities, all of which have either existing under-utilised, recently approved and/or pending crematoria located closer to these much larger population centres than Barrow Green Road.

c. Third, this skewed population distribution also means that Barrow Green Road will introduce what we consider to be a perverse travel pattern in that corteges and attendees will travel from their local, more densely populated area at the furthest edges of the Barrow Green Road catchment, and then across the open Tandridge countryside to Barrow Green Road. We believe it is more rational and sustainable for new crematoria to be located closer to population centres that are large enough to support them than to draw cremations from the perimeter of the Barrow Green Road catchment area.

22. With regards to catchment area definition and journey times, Document C19: OLRG representation: paragraphs 60-62 and Document B3: Officer Report

Page 7 of 16 paragraph 111 explains why journey times of up to 45 minutes can be acceptable in rural districts.

23. We also draw the Inspector’s attention to Document C19: OLRG representation: Paragraph 61 which includes an extract from Appeal 3233784 (The Leeds Appeal), where the Inspector gives limited weight to travel time given the rural setting of a significant extent of the area.

24. The above implies that a journey time of up to 45 minutes would be acceptable travelling from rural Tandridge to any of the existing/new/proposed crematoria located in these adjoining districts.

25. In addition, it is not unusual for Tandridge residents to have to travel outside of Tandridge due to lack of local facilities because the local population is too small to support them. For example, there is no A&E and no NHS hospital in Tandridge, and so residents travel to these facilities in adjoining local authorities. There is also limited local employment, and so residents travel to work in these adjoining local authorities, predominantly by car, according to the 2011 Census travel to work analysis.

26. We now examine each zone of the Barrow Green catchment area to illustrate the overlap in catchment areas with existing, permitted and/or pending facilities, starting with the north.

27. We will not repeat the assessment of all of the existing facilities to the north provided in Document G14 except to state that we agree with Document B3: Officer Report, paragraph 122 regarding Croydon Crematorium being closer to the north of the district and also that it is under-utilised. The reasons given in Document G14 as to why this is the case are not robust, e.g. Paragraph 2.7....a cultural preference for a crematorium that is outside London

Paragraph 5.63.2..it seems that many of the residents of the area south of London in districts such a Tandridge do not feel themselves to be Londoners and so a funeral ceremony in the busy metropolis does not feel appropriate....

Page 8 of 16 28. To the east, the Barrow Green Road catchment area extends to Sevenoaks, where there are two newly permitted facilities: Oak Tree Farm and Bluebell crematorium (which is within 1 mile of Oak Tree Farm). Both are closer to the more densely populated areas towards the eastern edge of the Barrow Green Road catchment area, and so are better placed to serve the larger population of Sevenoaks.

29. In addition, Document B3: Officer Report, paragraphs 116-117 explains how the stricter 30 minute catchment area for Oak Tree Farm extends to Oxted – which is near to Barrow Green Road, while the wider catchment includes Warlingham and Caterham, both of which are in the northern, most densely populated parts of Tandridge District. This conclusion applies equally to Bluebell Farm crematorium as it is so close. This means that the north of the district will have access to two new facilities. This fact alone significantly weakens the justification for Barrow Green Road.

30. To the south, the Barrow Green Road catchment area extends to East Grinstead, which is a large town in Mid Sussex. It is common ground that the southern and central parts of Tandridge are already within a 30 minute catchment area of the Surrey and Sussex and so there is already considerable overlap within the ideal 30 minute drive time.

31. In addition, the Public Inquiry into a new crematorium at Turners Hill has just concluded. Should it be approved, there would be a new facility to serve the southern area of the Barrow Green catchment area. The capacity issues at the Surrey and Sussex would also be alleviated because Turners Hill is located just 5 miles from the Surrey and Sussex. Turners Hill is also much better placed to alleviate any capacity issues at Surrey and Sussex than Barrow Green Road because Barrow Green Road is at the low population density perimeter of the Surrey and Sussex catchment area, whereas Turner’s Hill is closer to areas of higher population density.

32. Also to the south is Wealden Crematorium, which opened in 2019, and which is referred to in Document B3: Officer Report: Paragraph 123. The catchment area for this recently opened facility overlaps with both the Surrey

Page 9 of 16 and Sussex and the Kent and Sussex, and so it is reasonable to assume that Wealden will alleviate some of the capacity issues at the Surrey and Sussex.

33. To the west, Reigate and Banstead Borough Council have submitted an application to themselves for a new crematorium at Woodhatch Road. The catchment area for this facility is shown in Figure 2. It includes all of the more densely populated Reigate and Banstead BC (outlined in black) and much of Tandridge including the north, as well as parts of other adjoining local authorities. We note that Reigate and Banstead have just crossed the 150,000 minimum population viability threshold as shown in Table 1. Appellant SoC Paragraph 4.7 confirms that the Barrow Green Road crematorium will serve residents of Reigate and Banstead Borough as well as Tandridge District.

34. The Barrow Green Road site is located towards the far east of the Woodhatch Road catchment area, and so there is considerable overlap between the two catchment areas. The centre of the Woodhatch Lane catchment area is more densely populated than that of Barrow Green Road, which means average journey times will be lower for Woodhatch Lane than for Barrow Green Road, while coverage for the population in the north of Tandridge will also improve.

35. The Woodhatch Road catchment area also overlaps with that of the Surrey and Sussex Crematorium and Randalls Park in Leatherhead. This means that - should it be approved - the capacity issues explained in the Appellant’s SoC would also be alleviated. The decision is expected shortly.

Page 10 of 16

Figure 2: Source: Woodhatch Road Needs Assessment Executive Summary

36. All of the above permitted and pending facilities are located closer to larger, more densely populated areas than Barrow Green Road and so are better placed to serve the residents of those more densely populated districts while also improving access for Tandridge residents.

37. Furthermore, Document B3: Officer Report, paragraph 113 explains that the Barrow Green crematorium will take services from other crematoria. This is another indication that the extent of the overlapping catchment areas highlighted above means that the need for another one at Barrow Green Road is far from compelling.

Green Belt Assessment

38. We disagree with the Appellant’s SoC which asserts that there is either minimal or “acceptable” harms to openness, visual impact and harm to character of the area and the AONB.

39. We agree with the Officer Report for 2020/690 as follows:

Page 11 of 16 a. paragraphs 44-46 which explain why the proposal is inappropriate development and contrary to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. b. paragraphs 53-54 which explain the harm to character and locality that arises from the proposal. We add that the proposal is detrimental to the character of the site itself because its current open and undeveloped character would be destroyed. c. paragraphs 58-60 which explain the harm to the Surrey Hills AONB.

40. We draw the Inspector’s attention to Document C19, the OLRG representation to 2020/690, Paragraphs 1-10 which include our assessment of the harm to openness and why the proposal is contrary to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt

41. Document G1: LVIA does not provide any new information that changes any of our previous conclusions. For example, Document G1: LVIA, paragraph 1.16 confirms that the site is open and undeveloped, comprising a simple green field that is sloping and bounded by rural features such as post and rail fencing, hedgerows and some trees. There is no built form on the site.

42. The visualisations included in the LVIA show the adverse impact on both the spatial and visual aspects of openness as this once open and undeveloped green field is occupied by new buildings, car parking, hardstanding and lighting in Year 1. The open views through the site are then completely blocked by the monoblock of new woodland screen planting by Year 15.

43. This confirms the harm to openness and the adverse impact on the rural character of the site and to the area.

44. We also disagree with Document G1: LVIA that the proposal does not encroach into the countryside. The proposal introduces large amounts of built form, car parking, associated hardstanding and new access, accompanied by significant intensification of what is currently an undeveloped open field which forms an integral part of the countryside in which this field is located.

Page 12 of 16 Therefore, the proposal results in encroachment into the countryside which is contrary to the purposes of the Green Belt.

45. Furthermore, the proposal would bisect this area of Green Belt thereby fragmenting it, which diminishes the strong contribution to the openness of the Green Belt in this area.

Character and Appearance

46. We draw the Inspector’s attention to Document C19: Paragraphs 17-31 which explains our assessment of the harms to the character of the site, local area, and to the AONB, and also to the amenity and experience of recreational users of the countryside in this area.

47. We disagree with numerous aspects of Document G1: LVIA, and highlight just some of these in the following paragraphs.

48. We disagree with the characterisation of the area in which the site is located as described in Document G1:LVIA, for example in paragraph 6.11. The LVIA description uses what we consider to be pejorative words, such as “urban influence”, “urban fringe”, “transitional”, whereas the photographs in Document G1: Appendix E show undeveloped, open countryside with short and long distance views of even more countryside, including views of the AONB.

49. Irrespective of the description in the LVIA, we believe that the site visit will show that the northern side of the A25 is not an urban one, and instead contains the golf club at the A22 junction, and then open fields and woodland until the boundary of Old Oxted. The southern side of the A25 starting from the A22 also contains open fields, then Knights Garden Centre, fields, the golf course and more fields, and then the boundary of Old Oxted begins.

50. In addition, Document G1: LVIA, paragraph 4.59 (among others) incorrectly attributes a detrimental effect on the rural character of the area arising from the disused sand pit workings. This is incorrect because the restoration of this area has been permitted under SCC 2020/0227/TDC ref TA11/1075, and

Page 13 of 16 once restored, this large area will make a strong positive contribution to the rural character of this area.

51. Furthermore, Document G1: LVIA, paragraph 5.38 and 5.42, 5.43 explains that the buildings, paths, and car park will be lit constantly during opening hours. This introduces all year round artificial lighting where none currently exists, which adds to the intensification of use and the harm to the character of the site and to the local area arising from the proposal.

52. Document G1: LVIA, paragraph 5.40 also confirms that parts of the site will be formalised through non-native and ornamental planting, which adds further to the harm to character.

53. Lastly, Document G1 LVIA, paragraph 7.8 and the associated views confirm that the recreational enjoyment of the footpath and bridleway will be impaired due to the visibility of the building and the services occurring within it from the footpath/bridleway. This is contrary to CSP20, and also to NPPF 170 (a) and (b), which states that: Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) ...protecting and enhancing valued landscapes...... b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

Other matters: Traffic and highway safety 54. We draw the Inspector’s attention to Document C19: OLRG representation: Paragraphs 32-40 which highlights our assessment of the adverse impact on traffic and also the harm to the rural character of the area due to the creation of the slip road and removal of 140m of hedging to create the visibility splays.

Conclusion: Planning Balance and Very Special Circumstances

55. In conclusion, we have explained in this letter and in Document C19 how the proposal is inappropriate development and would cause considerable harm to both the visual and spatial aspects of openness. It would also encroach into the countryside, and bisect the existing swathe of Green Belt and so diminish the strong contribution to the open character of the Green Belt in this area. The NPPF requires that significant weight be attached to this harm.

Page 14 of 16 56. The proposal also causes harm to the views of the AONB, to the character of the site and to the area due to the significant intensification of use, design of built form, car parking, formal landscaping and screening. This is contrary to Document D6: Core Strategy: Policy CSP20 and Document D1: NPPF (2019).

57. Furthermore, there is adverse impact on the amenities and enjoyment of recreational users of the countryside due to the proximity of the building to the footpaths and bridleway, and views of it and the services within. This will discourage use of this part of the countryside. This is contrary to Document D6: Core Strategy: Policy CSP18 and Document D7: Tandridge District Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies: Policy DP7.

58. With regards to the need assessment which the Appellant explains is the “nub of the case”, our analysis shows that there is insufficient “unmet cremation need” in Tandridge and surrounding districts to justify a new crematorium at Barrow Green Road. There is considerable overlap in catchment areas for existing, permitted and pending facilities all of which are nearer to much larger populations capable of supporting new and existing crematoria, while also including Tandridge as part of their catchment areas.

59. Our analysis also shows that Barrow Green Road is not an appropriate location due to the skewed population distribution between sparsely populated Tandridge and the more densely populated adjoining districts and boroughs.

60. On that basis, we conclude that the Appellant has not demonstrated that the need is sufficient to outweigh these harms, and so the proposal is contrary to Document D1: NPPF (2019) and Document D7: Tandridge District Local Plan Part 2: Policies DP10 and DP13.

61. Therefore, we believe that the Appeal should be dismissed.

Yours sincerely, Councillor Catherine Sayer, Councillor David Stamp, Councillor Jackie Wren Oxted North and Tandridge Ward Oxted & Limpsfield Residents Group

Page 15 of 16 Appendix A: Catchment Area analysis extacts from the Woodhatch Crematorium Needs Assessment. Final.10.2020. Executive Summary.

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 16 of 16

6.1.3 Reigate and Banstead Borough Council have considered how their residents needs are being met by existing crematoria currently being used by their residents. The crematoria primarily providing this service, are as follows:

Leatherhead Surrey and Sussex Crematorium Crawley Croydon Crematorium Croydon, South London North East Surrey Crematorium Morden, South London

6.1.4 The location of each of the crematoria can be seen in Figure 5 below:

Figure 5 Map showing location of existing and proposed crematoria

North East Surrey Croydon

Woodhatch

Surrey & Sussex

6.2 Catchment Areas of Existing Crematoria

6.2.1 Figure 5 shows the locations of each of the existing crematoria servicing the borough of Reigate and Banstead. It also shows the location of the proposed crematorium on land West of New Farm Pond Depot, Woodhatch Road, Woodhatch. Consideration needs to be given to the drive times and catchment areas of these crematoria.

6.2.2 The isochrones utilised in establishing the catchment areas shown in Figure 6, were unable to exclude the effect of the motorway system. We have, however, compared these to other information available, which remove the motorways from the calculations. From such comparisons, it is clear that by removing the motorways, as these are not generally used by funeral directors, there would be a shrinkage in the catchment areas Park and Surrey & Sussex Crematoria. This would leave a significant part of the borough of Reigate and Banstead outside of the 30-minute cortege drive time catchment areas for any of the existing crematoria serving the borough.

Figure 6 Catchment Areas of Existing Crematoria (based on 30-minute cortege drive times

6.2.3 The areas of interest affected by the inclusion of the motorways in the drivetime analysis are identified in green in Figure 6. The isochrones utilised, with the motorway information, show the extended catchment areas for Sussex crematoria. The area shown in green indicates the approximate areas artificially extended due to the influence of the motorway network and therefore the areas where residents currently reside outside of the 30 minute cortege drive time of either of the two existing crematoria.

6.2.4 This has relevance for Reigate and Banstead Borough Council as many of the residents within the area identified in green are their residents, who could benefit greatly from a crematorium that is more local to them. However, all residents, whichever Borough they may live in, will benefit from a more local crematorium, more than this they will benefit from a greater choice of service. Whilst some may prefer an older, more traditional type of facility, it is clear from research, such as that carried out by Co-op Funeralcare in 2019, that there is a growing trend away from the traditional and towards more modern options to celebrate a persons life rather than mourn their death. A new facility will provide both the choice of new against traditional also, for many, it will provide a more convenient option. Finally, a new crematorium will potentially allow bereaved families to choose a less expensive option to crematoria currently charging the highest fees in the UK.

6.2.5 Figure 6 clearly identifies why the majority of residents in the borough of Reigate and Banstead, and surrounding areas, are compelled to choose either Surrey & Sussex crematoria, both these having the most expensive fees in the UK and provided by Dignity plc. Whilst some to the north of Reigate may be tempted by the lower fees charged by either NE Surrey or Croydon, Figure 6 identifies the likely influence of South London traffic, as the 30-minute cortege drivetime catchment areas are significantly smaller. Drivetimes into such crematoria could be difficult, even in off peak hours. Further to this, the qualitative standards of these two crematoria and the fact they both lie within poorly maintained cemeteries, may further affect any decision to use either of these options.

6.2.6 The provision of a new crematorium on land West of New Farm Pond Depot, Woodhatch Road will provide an essential additional option for bereaved families. Currently, Reigate and Banstead residents have a realistic choice of either

Sussex crematoria, if they are wanting to provide the best option available for their loved ones. They are, therefore, forced to choose between one of two most expensive crematoria in the country is subject to flooding at times.

Figure 7 Catchment Areas of Existing Crematoria + Woodhatch (based on 30-minute cortege drive times

6.2.7 The provision of a crematorium in Woodhatch will provide that essential additional option, a modern crematorium providing a high quality of service at a reasonable price, provided by the local authority. Figure 7 shows Woodhatch crematorium and its 30- minute cortege speed catchment area. Catchment areas are, once again, affected by the isochrone used, this includes the catchment area for the proposed Woodhatch crematorium the northern, southern, easter and western edges of the catchment area, where intersected by the motorways, need to be reduced, even with adjustments the crematorium covers the areas, previously outside of the existing crematoria catchment areas. Importantly, for the vast majority of the borough of Reigate and Banstead, it provides the option of a modern, high quality service for residents, at a price that will be decided by Council Members elected from the borough. It is generally accepted that the funeral plays an important role in dealing with grief and there have been a number of notable pieces of research regarding funerals, and the effect of restricting funerals has on the mental health of the bereaved, some of these specifically related to the effect of the current pandemic2. Choice of a final resting place or the location of the crematorium for a final goodbye is therefore an essential requirement for bereaved families.

6.2.8 Figure 6 indicates that there is currently many residents of the borough of Reigate and Banstead and surrounding areas, without access to a crematorium within a 30-minute drive. Figure 7 shows how the provision of a crematorium in Woodhatch would resolve

2 Methods Review with Implications for COVID-19, Alexander Burrell. Lucy E. Selman July 2020. The Good Funeral: Toward an understanding of funeral participation and satisfaction. Death Studies 35(8), 729-

this problem. In addition to solving an access problem, the provision of a crematorium at Woodhatch provides the vast majority of residents in the Reigate & Banstead borough with a much-needed choice of crematoria.

6.2.9 Currently, choice for residents of the borough is restricted to two crematoria set within the confines of very old cemeteries in the South of London, well outside the 30-minute cortege drivetime for most of the borough; or one of two highly priced crematoria, one of which is operating well outside of the quantitative standards (by 34%) and is subject to occasional flooding, the other is reaching its quantitative standard (7% within) with evidence of a very busy site.

Figure 8 Catchment Areas of Woodhatch (both 30-minute cortege drive times ays included)

6.2.10 Figure 8 shows Woodhatch crematorium and its potential catchment areas, using both a 30-minute cortege speed drive time catchment and a 30-minute standard drive time catchment. This clearly identifies that most of the borough of Reigate and Banstead lies within the 30-minute cortege drive time catchment area and very easily lies within the 30-minute standard drive time catchment area. This will provide both easier access and improved choice of the type of service residents want to receive from their crematorium of choice.

6.2.11 We have primarily considered the 30-minute cortege speed driving times when developing catchment areas of crematoria, as these have been considered as reasonable by planning authorities and planning appeals across England and Wales. Funeral Directors in parts of the country, however, do report that where standards at a particular crematorium exceed the standards of their competing crematoria, then families have stated to them that they are willing to travel up to 10 minutes further to ensure they - for their loved ones. A modern high quality crematorium with grounds that both blend with the surrounding countryside and provide peaceful areas for families to quietly remember their loved ones, will undoubtedly meet needs that are currently not fulfilled by existing crematoria in the area and the 30-minute