The application to build a multi-faith cemetery on protected green belt land has been refused by the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council.

The plan for the cemetery, proposed for green belt pasture land that borders 16 Croydon Lane, Banstead, was discussed at a planning meeting on July 27.

The application for the erection of two buildings, a 55-space car park and 4137 burial plots has come up against fierce opposition.

Councillor Keith Foreman of Woodmansterne, speaking at the meeting, said 589 residents had personally contacted him objecting to the proposal which, he said, “showed the strength of feeling about the application”.

Resident and representative of the Banstead Village Resident’s Association (BVRA) Michael Sawyer said on its behalf: “I’ve been asked to emphasise how vital this northern section of green belt is to the protection of Banstead Village. This is one of the narrow strips of green belt separating Surrey communities from the Greater London sprawl”.

Head of places and planning Natalia Achilleos previously advised councillors of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council to refuse the application stating “the proposed development would constitute inappropriate development within the greenbelt, and would be harmful to the openness of the green belt”.

Due to the application being on green belt land, the only way it could have been approved was if Ms Amin was able to convince the committee that there were very special circumstances for the need for this cemetery.

In her application Ms Amin argued: “there is a clear need for the development (of the multi-faith cemetery)… burial space in the UK is becoming scarce at an ever increasing rate”.

During the meeting, Councillor Lynne Rosemary Hack of the Banstead ward disagreed with Ms Amin stating there was no evidence of need for a new cemetery.

She said: “I have here a report from the cemetery and crematorium needs analysis presented on July 14 saying that just 4.3 miles away at Sutton Cemetery there is a capacity of 40 years left (there).”

Cllr Hack then listed a number of other cemeteries nearby that could be used rather than building on a site that would “harm” green belt land. The application was unanimously rejected.