CAMPAIGNERS battling to halt homes being built on a picturesque meadow have been given a boost.
The Westcott Meadow Action Group put its case forward at a High Court hearing on Thursday and Friday last week to overturn a decision to grant Taylor Wimpey's application to build 14 homes in April 2012.
Mr Justice Williams said he would rule on the case in "a matter of weeks", after which – if he sides with the action group – a further public inquiry will be held on the Springfield Meadow plan.
Group chairman Alex Segal told the Advertiser: "We are seeking a review of the way in which the planning inspector came to his conclusion and we are thrilled we might be getting it.
"In a number of aspects the inspector failed to follow what we consider to be proper practise and we feel he did not account for certain evidence.
"It is not that he found one thing and we disagreed, it is rather that having studied his detailed report we believe that there are serious grounds for challenging it in the courts."
An initial application by Taylor Wimpey for 34 homes was rejected by Mole Valley District Council in October 2010 because of its impact on traffic, listed buildings and the environment.
A revised application for 14 homes was then given to the Planning Inspectorate as the district council failed to consider the plans within the legal deadline.
The public inquiry finished hearing evidence in March 2012, and the inspector finally ruled in Taylor Wimpey's favour the following month.
Planning inspector Paul Dobsen's report stated: "I find the proposed development would not harm the safety of users of Westcott Street or Balchins Lane, or the free flow of traffic using them.
"Nor would it harm either the historic setting or the structural stability of Lower Springfield Farmhouse.
"The proposals would have many merits in terms of helping to meet the district housing requirement, including the need for affordable housing."
Taylor Wimpey land and planning director David Brown said: "We are disappointed that the Westcott Meadow Action Group has decided to lodge this challenge, as we had hoped members would respect the impartial and professional judgement of the independent planning inspector, despite their opposition to our proposals."