Controversial plans for a new housing development on a college site were approved by councillors at a jam-packed meeting last night.

Epsom Council’s planning committee approved, by eight votes to four, a planning application to build 91 homes on the site of Nescot’s animal husbandry site, measuring 3.87 hectares, in Reigate Road, Ewell.

The college wants to sell the site, which is not designated greenbelt land, to fund the renovation of its main campus.

In January, Nescot was granted planning permission to create 21st Century facilities for its students and has secured a £7million Government grant to help do this.

But a further £14million of match-funding is required for the re-development and the college may lose the Government funding if the improvement works are not completed by next September.

But hundreds of residents have raised concerns about the plans including traffic issues and loss of green space.

Plans for a care home on part of the site were thrown out by Epsom and Ewell's planning committee in April. 

Last night, councillors allowed plans for the homes - 36 of which would be affordable houses - watched by 90 residents and Nescot supporters in the public gallery and council chamber.

Nescot has said it was "delighted" with the result.

The college caused controversy ahead of the meeting by sending an email to staff members saying that anyone attending the meeting would receive an extra day’s leave in lieu - a move which was deemed "underhand" and as "bribery" by residents, who worried they would be pushed out of the meeting.

But the college insisted people had wanted to attend prior to the email going out and it was standard practise to give staff time off if they do something like this on behalf of the college.

Mark Berry, head of Epsom Council’s planning and building control, began the meeting by outlining the plans.

The homes will be a range of two to four bedroom homes, with 40 per cent affordable housing which will be scattered throughout the development. 

New access from Reigate Road would be required for the housing development and the homes would have a traditional look, in keeping with the character of Ewell Village.

Mr Berry said: "It’s important to note that this site is within the urban area and not greenbelt and is a site which has been identified as a potential allocation for development by the council."

Two open spaces would be included as part of the development - one an equipped children’s play area and one non-equipped area. 

Mr Berry said 14 trees would be removed, but 139 new trees will be planted and 208 parking spaces would be available for the new homes. 

£300,000 has been secured from the developer in Section 106 contributions - £250,000 of which will go into education in Epsom and Ewell.

David Williams, an objector who spoke at the meeting, said this was a "huge development" which would affect hospital services, surgeries, schools and the supply of electricity and water and which "does not serve the long-term needs to the community".

Jared Fox, of Epsom Road, Ewell, spoke in support of the development.

He said: "I’m here to represent the silent majority.  This site delivers some very needed housing and social housing."

Sunaina Mann OBE, the principal and chief executive of Nescot, also addressed the council and highlighted the fact that Nescot’s Government funding would be lost unless work starts on the development next April.

She said councillors would be "letting down current and future students of this borough" if the development was not approved.

During a lengthy debate, councillors raised a number of points about the development. 

These included whether it constituted over-development, whether the open spaces to be provided within the development would be safe and healthy for children to play in, loss of green space, whether the development is required to meet housing needs in the borough, and whether consideration had been given as to how schools in the area would meet the demand of an increased population.

Councillor Clive Smitheram said: "This is an application which has the potential to create all sorts of problems in the future."

He said there was too much pollution from the surrounding roads to allow youngsters to play on an open space next to them.

Councillor Graham Dudley said: "I’m sure we would all like to see a world-class educational facility like Nescot in this borough but that doesn’t mean we should necessarily approve a planning application to achieve that.   

"I’m not convinced there is a need for housing on this site."

Councillor Colin Taylor pointed to the number of objections received against the development but said: "We do need housing and some may describe this as the least bad option. "

Councillor Ian Booker said: "In my view this is an over-development of the site."

Councillor David Wood said he did not believe the development was required to meet the targets the borough has for housing up to 2026 and that it actually goes beyond the numbers required per year to meet the future target.

He said: "The whole idea that we need to develop this site to ensure we meet our requirements is not sustainable. 

"They are trying to squeeze too much on this site. 

"It’s all down to over-development."

Councillor Michael Arthur said: "I don’t think our case for this particular site would stand up on appeal.  I don’t think we would have a leg to stand on. 

"On balance I don’t think we can go for a refusal."

Mr Berry provided councillors with similar advice - that, if refused on grounds such as over-development, the Planning Inspectorate would be likely to allow an appeal.

Councillor Anna Jones said: "I can’t think of a very substantial planning reason to refuse this, although I do have some big concerns and regrets."

Councillor Dan Stevens added: "We are gifted with a development here that meets with planning policy. 

"I don’t think it’s over-development. 

"As a young person trying to make my way in the world who wants to stay living in the borough I know we desperately need housing."

A spokeswoman for Nescot said: "Staff and governors are delighted that the application was approved.

"The decision means that the college can continue with the essential refurbishment work to the campus.

"Re-developing the land currently occupied by the Animal Care Unit was the only way the college could fund the upgrades to the campus that our current and future students need and deserve."