Self-build two-bedroom dwelling at Land Adjacent To Edenbrook, 45a East Hill, Oxted

What was proposed

The application proposed a detached self-build two-bedroom dwelling with amenity space, landscaping, parking and use of the existing access.

“Application: 2025/579 Location: Land adjacent to Edenbrook, 45a East Hill, Oxted, Surrey, RH8 9AE Proposal: Erection of detached 'self-build' two-bedroom dwelling with associated amenity space, landscaping, parking and utilising existing vehicular access (amended plans). Ward: Oxted North…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is open garden land beside an existing dwelling, with mature landscaping, nearby homes, the River Eden and flood zones 2 and 3.

“The application site comprises an extended area of open garden land which serves an existing detached dwelling known as Edenbrook, which is located on the northern side of East Hill, within the urban area in Oxted. The River Eden is located to the west of the site with this adjoining the south-western boundary of the land. The western part of the site is located within Flood Zone 3 whilst the eastern part is located within Flood Zone 2.”

“The open garden area benefits from mature landscaping located around its perimeter with mature trees positioned along both the southern and western boundary of the site. This largely screens the site from view. Access to the site is gained via an existing private driveway from East Hill which slopes downwards into the site which currently serves the existing property and would serve the new dwelling as proposed.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for dwellings were refused, including a 2021 self-build application whose appeal was dismissed in April 2023.

“87/1170 – Erection of two dwellings – Refused 90/716 - Erection of dwelling – Outline refused 91/584 – Erection of dwelling – Outline refused 96/4 – Erection of two storey dwelling – Refused…”

“2021/1949: Erection of a self-build dwelling on a parcel of land adjacent to Edenbrook (Outline planning with all matters reserved): REFUSED on the following grounds:”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the proposal acceptable in design, residential amenity, highways, biodiversity, drainage, flooding, trees and carbon reduction, subject to safeguards.

“The site is located within the Urban Area of Oxted where the principle of development is acceptable. The key issues are the character and appearance, residential amenities, transport impacts, biodiversity, flood-risk, renewable energy provision, flooding and drainage, and trees.”

“Erection of a detached 'self-build' two-bedroom dwelling with associated amenity space, landscaping, parking and utilising existing vehicular access.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The highway and tree authorities raised no objection subject to conditions, while parish and environmental consultees raised concerns or requested further safeguards.

“County Highway Authority – “THE COUNTY HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (CHA) has undertaken an assessment in terms of the likely net additional traffic generation, access arrangements and parking provision and are satisfied that the application would not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway. Conditions to be imposed on any permission granted.”

“Tree Officer: No objection. Conditions to be imposed…”

Officer report

Comments from others

Third-party comments raised concerns about flood risk, overbearing effects and the proposal being out of character.

“Flood Risk • Overbearing • Out of character…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and a parish councillor spoke against the application, while the agent spoke in support on behalf of the applicant.

The committee’s concerns

Members considered that the dwelling’s scale, form, height, proximity and constrained backland setting would harm neighbours and the established residential area’s character.

“The proposed development, by reason of its scale, form, height and proximity to neighbouring dwellings, would result in unacceptable visual intrusion and an enclosing effect on adjoining properties and their private amenity space.”

“The proposed development by reason of the constrained nature of the site and scale, form, height spacing and siting of the proposed dwelling would form an intensification of residential garden or back land and would not maintain the spatial separation and character of the established residential area.”

Minutes

The vote

Members approved both motions for refusal.

“Upon being put to the vote both motions for refusal were approved.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused.

“R E S O L V E D – that planning permission be refused.”

Minutes