Five-bedroom dwelling at Gilead House, Quality Street, Merstham

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the remaining building and erecting a detached five-bedroom dwelling with parking, gardens and communal space.

“Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building (the remnant of the former rear wing) and erection for detached single storey dwelling with habitable rooms in the roof space to create five-bedroom dwelling house with associated amenity space and car park.”

“The proposed dwelling would be of a traditional chalet bungalow style with bedrooms within the roof space. It would be set further back into the site than the existing building on the site and would be provided with 3 car parking spaces, located to the front within an extended main parking area for the adjoining Gilead House. Access to the site would be via the existing vehicular access along the north side of Gilead House.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is garden land behind Gilead House in the Merstham Village Conservation Area, near listed buildings and open countryside.

“The site of 0.098 hectares is located to the west side of Quality Street in Merstham. The property, along with the rest of the street, is located within the Merstham Village Conservation Area There are many characterful properties located along Quality Street, including Court Cottage and The Old Manor to the north which are Grade II listed buildings, and there are other listed buildings nearby to the north, east and south.”

“The application site forms part of the garden space of Gilead House and is somewhat overgrown, with the landscape beyond comprising more open countryside, which is located within an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV), the Metropolitan Green Belt and a Biodiversity Opportunity Area (BOA). The Surrey Hills National Landscape is even further to the west. An area of informal parking is located to the front, and the site remains reasonably flat throughout.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and enforcement

Earlier permissions concerned converting Gilead House into flats, later parking changes, and ongoing enforcement investigations and breaches of conditions.

“24/00509/S73 Demolition of extensions to the rear of the property and conversion of building to nine flats, including design and fenestration changes, including the erection of dormer to rear roof slope. Variation of conditions 1 and 3 of permission 22/00476/F. Revision of the approved parking and amenity space layout. Refused 03/06/2024 for the following reasons: Refused 03/06/2024”

“Planning Committee Agenda Item: 8 4 th March 2026 25/00728/F 3.5 24/01117/S73 Demolition of extensions to the rear of the property and conversion of building to nine flats, including design and fenestration changes, including the erection of dormer to rear roof slope. Variation of conditions 1 and 3 of permission 22/00476/F. Revision of the approved parking and amenity space layout. Refused 03/06/2024 for the following reasons: Refused 09/08/2024”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding the design, neighbour impact, parking, highways, trees, ecology and biodiversity arrangements acceptable subject to conditions.

“The proposal would meet the Council’s parking standards as set out within the Development Management Plan and the adopted Parking Standards. The County Highways Authority have raised no objection to the proposal subject to recommended conditions, including widening of the access. Though it would still not meet access widths for a fire tender in full, no objection is raised by the Surrey Fire Service.”

“The Council’s Tree Officer has reviewed the plans and considers that the impact on retained trees on the site would be acceptable.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the proposal, while the applicant spoke in support and a visiting councillor discussed residents’ concerns and the referral history.

The committee vote

A refusal was proposed and seconded, and the committee resolved to refuse planning permission.

“A reason for refusal was proposed by Councillor Gabriel and seconded by Councillor Walsh, whereupon the Committee voted and RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds that:”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

The committee found the detached dwelling out of keeping with the area’s rear-garden pattern, harming the conservation area and a designated heritage asset.

“The proposal dwelling, by virtue of the introduction of a single, detached dwelling in an area characterised by rear gardens, would be out of keeping with the prevailing linear pattern of development along Quality Street. It would appear as a discordant feature which would have an adverse impact on the character of the Merstham Conservation Area and would cause less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset that is not outweighed by public benefits.”

Minutes