Self-build detached dwelling at Little Heath, Linkside West, Hindhead

What was proposed

The application sought a self-build detached home after demolishing a double garage, widening the existing vehicle access.

“Erection of a new self-build detached dwelling following demolition of an existing double garage. The dwelling would measure a width of 9m (a maximum width of 9.6m including the chimney stack and the single storey side outshoot) and depth of 14.4m with an eaves height of 5.9m and maximum height of 9.4m. • Widening of the existing vehicular access…”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site contains a detached garage in a built-up residential area of varied detached homes, plots and separation distances.

“The application site is located on the south-eastern side of Linkside West in Hindhead. The site comprises the detached garage at Little Heath, the donor property. The character of the area is built-up residential and comprises mostly detached two storey dwellings of varied scale, form and design, set within plots of varying sizes.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and appeals

Earlier schemes were refused or dismissed, while a later dwelling proposal was allowed on appeal; this application revised spacing and roof design.

“Planning application WA/2021/01774, for the subdivision of the plot and erection of two additional dwellings together with alterations and extensions to the existing dwelling, was refused by the Council on 19/01/2022 and subsequently dismiss at Appeal on 04/01/2023. The Inspector upheld just one of the three reasons for refusal given by the Council, namely the impact of Plot 2 (subject to the current application) on the character and appearance of the area.”

“This application refers solely to Plot 2 and seeks to address the reason for refusal of the dismissed Appeal by increasing the separation distance between the donor property and the proposed dwelling as well as altering the roof design to allow views towards the rear gardens.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because they considered the revised design addressed earlier character concerns and would not cause undue neighbour harm.

“Officers are of the view that this has been sufficiently addressed, and the proposal no longer results in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area by reason of close position to the existing dwelling and obstruction of views towards the rear garden areas, reducing the spaciousness of the area.”

“Given the separation distances between dwellings, their orientation within their plots and the existing mature foliage fringing the boundaries, the proposal is not considered to result in undue harm to the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, in line with the assessment made by the Inspector for planning application WA/2021/01774.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, trees and wildlife consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while Haslemere Town Council objected over character, parking and amenity.

“Consultee Comments SCC Highways No objection subject to conditions WBC(Tree & Landscape Officer) No objection subject to conditions Surrey Wildlife Trust No objection subject to conditions…”

“Haslemere Town Council Objection: - Overdevelopment and Harm to Local Character - Insufficient On-Site Parking (Impacts on Amenity and Highway Safety) (the full letter of objection is available to view on the Council’s website) Officers Response: the issue raised are addressed under sections 11 and 17 of the report below…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The public speaking representations included two objectors, one supporter, a town council representative and a ward councillor.

The committee debate

Members received planning advice and discussed the refusal reasons, including an appeal inspector’s conclusion about adverse impact on area character.

“During this period Claire Upton-Brown, Joint Assistant Director of Planning gave the committee advice, where she read extracts from the Appeal Inspector’s report. However, the extracts mentioned did not include one of the main concerns raised by the inspector in relation to the harm he identified which would “erode the spacious, verdant character of the area” (paragraph 9)”

“The Member was subsequently allowed to read the extract from paragraph 10 of the inspector’s report: "I therefore conclude the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area…”

Minutes

How members voted

Members first voted against the officer recommendation, then supported an alternative refusal resolution by eight votes to three, with one abstention.

“Following debate, the committee voted against the officers recommendation to grant permission 4 in favour, no abstentions and 8 against.”

“The Committee voted in favour of the alternative resolution 8 in favour, 1 abstention and 3 against.”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning permission was refused because the development did not respect the area’s verdant character and was out of keeping with the street scene.

“RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:”

“The proposed development does not respect the verdant character of the area and would result in a development out of keeping in the street scene . It therefore…”

Minutes