The Inspector’s Report following the inquiry into objections to the “Revised Deposit Draft 2000 and to the Further Proposed Changes” gave the following conclusion: “Delay confirmation of the allocations until the Council is confident that the indicative 1 in 100 year flood event definition has been validated.”

Reigate & Banstead Councillors appear to be confident that this definition has been validated, based on the Environment Agency’s revised computer model. Yet it is known that this computer model takes no account of the 1968 floods which seriously affected those parts of Horley that are subject to the Masterplan proposals.

In a press release of December 20th 2004, Peter Ainsworth MP said “I much regret that the EA flatly refused to reconsider the evidence. What we have here is a conflict between a computer model and the real life experience of local people. Whilst I do not doubt the integrity of the EA, many people will think it perverse that they are putting all their faith in a computer model that fails to reflect what happened in 1968.”

Moreover CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) Surrey, in a letter dated December 31st 2004, said that the evidence of the 1968 flooding is far in excess of the Environment Agency’s 1 in a 100 year flood event, even though the EA now recognise 1968 as a 1 in 80 flood event! The same letter goes on to say “The EA discount the 1968 flood because their equipment was either inadequate at the time or destroyed in the 1968 flood”. It continues “It seems inconceivable that a 1968 event with 4.57” of rainfall should be ignored and the model should only take into account the 2.7” of the early 1990’s”. Then follows “When it comes to a matter of eyewitness statements being in conflict with a computer model where certain inputs may turn out to be unreliable or suspect, the eye witnesses’ evidence should take precedence. The EA … said that its model was based on the best available information – a statement which CPRE Surrey considers to be at odds with the evidence”. CPRE Surrey therefore concluded that there is a high element of risk in the EA’s revised flood predictions, and strongly urged the Council to adopt the precautionary principle rather than accept the EAs revised forecast.

So how has the Council reacted? On February 3rd 2005 its Executive Committee voted (by 6 to 2) to adopt the Master Plan, thereby ignoring the 1968 flood evidence and its implied risks for development in NE and NW Horley. However, as indicated in Horley Life on February 10th 2005, there was clearly some appreciation by Councillors of the risk issues. For example Councillor Lynne Hack was reported as admitting there is some risk of flooding in a worst case scenario, but she is quoted as saying “all the houses would be raised further to above 1968 flood levels so only the gardens would flood”.

On February 17th 2005 the full Reigate and Banstead Council, not surprisingly, approved the Borough Local Plan (of which the Horley Master Plan is part) by a large majority. A petition properly presented according to Council procedures to permit a representative of Horley Town Council to speak to the meeting was not allowed (referred to the Executive without debate). The general views expresed by those favouring the Local Plan were that the benefits would be for the whole borough, Horley has had a lower share of housing development than other parts of the borough, a no-vote would simply mean the development being taken out of the Borough Council’s hands and still proceeding (but without investment in amenities), there will be adequate engineering provision to remove any flood water before it becomes a problem and, anyway, the flood studies have been sufficinetly robust to allow the Council to ignore the evidence of residents about the 1968 event. Even so, it was said that the new houses will be raised up half a metre in order to avoid them flooding! Referring to traffic problems, one councillor said the new Horley-Salfords bypass would become as congested as the A23. This puzzled manyof the residents present at the meeting, who were unaware of plans for any such bypass.

1968 seems a long time ago, and many people who might be interested in purchasing homes in the Horley development areas will not be familiar with the flooding extent at that time. But photographs of that event do exist which allow fairly accurate assessments to be made of the floodwater depth, and developers, purchasers, mortgage lenders and insurers should all be aware that satisfactory solutions to the flooding risks have to be put in place.