Self-build replacement dwelling at Stemming, East Horsley, Leatherhead

What was proposed

The application proposed replacing an existing bungalow with a four-bedroom self-build house, basement parking, solar panels and landscaping.

“The application has been submitted as a full application and proposes the erection of a self-build detached, two storey dwelling with basement, solar panels to roof, parking and associated landscaping following demolition of existing bungalow.”

“Living accommodation and a swimming pool is proposed on the ground and first floor levels. The basement level would provide parking for four cars, a shower room, and a plant room to serve the swimming pool.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a bungalow on a long plot beside a private road, within the East Horsley settlement and neighbourhood plan area.

“Site description The application site consists of a detached, three bedroom, single-storey dwelling, situated at the front of a long (64m) plot. The building is brick built, with a hipped, clay-tiled roof and narrow gabled porch on the front elevation. The front garden has been cleared and the rear garden has recently been landscaped and a timber clad, flat-roofed outbuilding has been constructed at the rear of the plot.”

“The site is inset from the Green Belt (within the identified settlement of East Horsley) and is within the East Horsley Neighbourhood Plan Area.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the amended design addressed the earlier refusal and the proposal was acceptable on character, amenity, highways, ecology and sustainability.

“The concerns raised by the Parish Council and third parties have been carefully considered, however, officers consider that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area or any unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity. Furthermore…”

“The proposal is also considered to be acceptable and policy compliant in terms of its impact upon the living environment of the intended occupiers, highway and parking considerations, trees, biodiversity net gain, protected species, and sustainability.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

The Highway Authority, Wildlife Trust, Environmental Health and Tree Officer raised no objections subject to conditions, while the parish council objected.

“County Highway Authority: No objections subject to conditions.”

“Environmental Health: No further contamination investigation is required. No objections subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Objections received

Residents and the residents’ company objected to the development’s scale, appearance, privacy, construction impacts, excavation, drainage and effects on the private road.

“Letters of representation has also been received from the Oakwood Drive and Oakwood Close Residents Company Ltd (ODOCRCo) raising the following concerns and objections: • development would unreasonably prejudice the ODOCRCo’s ability to discharge its Street Manager responsibilities • damage to private road infrastructure [Officer comment: this would constitute a civil matter to be resolved between the applicant and/or their contractors and the landowner/Street Manager] •…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two people spoke against the application, two supported it, and the ward councillor addressed the committee.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the revised design, construction impacts, groundwater, basement parking and consultation responses, while recognising that conditions could address some concerns.

“The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, who outlined the proposal and explained that a previous application for a replacement dwelling on the site had been refused due to concerns regarding its scale, massing and design.”

“Whilst some concerns were expressed regarding the construction process and potential impacts on neighbouring residents, Members acknowledged that these matters could be addressed through planning conditions and that the revised design was materially improved compared with the previous scheme.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to approve was carried, with six votes for and one against and no abstentions.

“The Vice-Chair moved the motion to approve application 26/P/00121, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the Officer’s report, together with an additional condition requiring a Construction Environmental Management Plan. The motion was seconded by Councillor Hives and was carried.”

“FOR AGAINST ABSTAIN 1. Cllr Lizzie Griffiths X 2. Cllr Joss Bigmore X 3. Cllr George Potter X 4. Cllr Patrick Oven X 5. Cllr Stephen Hives X 6. Cllr Masuk Miah X 7. Cllr Sue Wyeth-Price X TOTALS 6 1 -”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application subject to the officer conditions and an additional Construction Environmental Management Plan condition.

“RESOLVED: That application 26/P/00121 be APPROVED, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the Officer’s report, together with an additional condition requiring the submission and approval of a Construction Environmental Management Plan, the wording of which be agreed in consultation with the Chair, or Vice-Chair.”

Minutes