23 residential units at Car Park West of Waterloo Court, Hersham, Walton-on-Thames

“OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Application: 2026/0036 Case officer: Graham Healey Proposal: Development comprising 23 residential units with associated car parking, cycle and refuse storage, landscaping, alterations to existing access and the relocation of the Maintenance Delivery Unit.”

“OFFICIAL OFFICIAL oDM6 – Landscape and trees oDM7 – Access and parking oDM8 – Refuse, recycling and external plant oDM10 – Housing oDM21 – Nature conservation and biodiversity •Elmbridge Design Code SPD 2024 •Development Contributions SPD 2021 •Flood Risk SPD 2016 •Parking SPD 2020 •NPPF 2026 Relevant planning history 5.Planning history: Reference Description Decision 2024/1948 Development comprising a terrace of 22 two- storey houses with rooms in the roof space and two…”

“The application site comprises two parcels of land. The main/primary site consists of a 0.45-hectare (approx.) parcel of land that is currently in use as a railway car park with 250 spaces, which is accessed from the northern side of Mayfield Road in Hersham. The main site lies adjacent to the railway line to its north and is bound by trees along the southern boundary and to the western end of the site.”

“The second site is a narrow parcel of land, approximately 0.05-hectares in size, that lies between the northern side of the railway line and the southern side of Station Avenue. There are trees, hedges and other vegetation to the west and east of the site and the site essentially lies within a green, landscaped buffer separating Station Avenue and the railway lines.”

“Refused 1986/0940 Change of use from railway operational land to car storage compound and erection of seven- foot-high perimeter fencing Granted 6.Previous application 2024/1948 was refused for the following reasons: •The proposed residential development would, by reason of its layout, form, mass, bulk, design and materials as well as the lack of appropriate landscaping, be unacceptably cramped and contrived in nature and produce a development that is cluttered, visually…”

“The proposal is located within an area at medium risk of surface water flooding and groundwater flooding and the submitted Flood Risk Assessment fails to demonstrate via a comprehensive Sequential Test that the proposal is safe for its lifetime and does not increase flood risk elsewhere. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CS26 of the Core Strategy 2011, the Flood Risk SPD 2016 and the NPPF 2024.”

“RECOMMENDATION B If a satisfactory legal agreement to secure the monitoring fee of £11,980.90 for the proposed on-site biodiversity net gain is not received within 6 months of the resolution to grant permission, or a longer period as agreed by the Head of Planning and Environmental Health, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Environmental Health to refuse planning permission for the following reason: •The proposal would, by reason of the lack of an…”

“334.With regard to the benefits arising from the proposal, the proposed residential element of the proposal would deliver a net gain of 23no. new homes. 335.As outline earlier in the report above, the current housing target for Elmbridge, set through the Government’s Standard Methodology, is to deliver 1,586 dwellings per annum, which increased to 1,903 applying the 20% buffer.”

“OFFICIAL OFFICIAL proposed MDU development is considered to be incongruous and intrusive within the street scene due to its size and height as well as its blank design and materials that fail to accord with the existing soft, green tree lined buffer that characterises the area in which the MDU site would be located.”

“Elmbridge Borough Council (EBC) Environmental Health (Noise & Pollution) – No objections raised subject to conditions to ensure implementation of the approved noise mitigation measures, secure submission of a radiated vibration assessment to identify appropriate mitigation, implement external lighting in accordance with the approved details within the submitted lighting impact assessment, and secure submission of a noise impact assessment prior to installation of any…”

“SCC Ecology – No objection raised subject to the statutory Biodiversity Gain Plan condition, a condition to secure Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) and a legal agreement to secure the monitoring of the on-site enhancements for a 30-year period.”

“A total of 22 letters of objection/observation have been received from 17 separate addresses and two letters of support have been received, as summarised below:”

“OFFICIAL OFFICIAL • Impact on nearby junctions have not been assessed. • Junction improvements should be secured if application is consented. • Increase in on-street parking and parking stress in the area. • Insufficient additional infrastructure to support the scheme and local residents. • No affordable housing is being provided. • Cost of relocating the MDU has been overstated in the applicant’s viability study. • Access to site is too narrow.”

“Consideration of the application was deferred to enable the publication of the viability review on the Council’s website.”