Five houses at 26 Knowle Park, Cobham

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing house and building five two-storey homes with access, parking, storage and landscaping.

“OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Application: 2025/2918 Case officer: Graham Healey Proposal: A pair of semi-detached two-storey houses with rooms in the roofspace and three detached two-storey houses with associated vehicular access, car parking, cycle and refuse storage and hard and soft landscaping following demolition of existing house.”

“Reference Description Decision 2025/2933 Part single/part two-storey front extension, part single/part two-storey rear extension, single-storey side extension and first floor side extension to convert existing dwelling into 4 two bedroom flats with modified access and off-street car parking following partial demolition of attached garage.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Several earlier schemes for additional homes or flats were refused, including a six-home proposal criticised for its scale, layout and effect on local character.

“Previous application 2025/0603 was refused for the following reasons: • The proposal would, by virtue of its size, height, scale, mass, positioning, plot coverage and design result in a development that not only fails to respect the established and prevailing pattern of development and sparse urban grain that characterises area but would also be incongruous and dominant form of development that is out of keeping with the existing built character of the area.”

“Recently refused application 2025/2933 for scheme to extend the existing building to provide four flats was refused for the following reasons: • The proposal would, by virtue of its size, height, scale, bulk and mass as well as the size, positioning and layout of the parking areas, result in a…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission, finding that the revised design reduced the harm and that housing, biodiversity and other benefits outweighed the remaining character harm.

“As outlined in the main body of the report above, officers have found that the proposal would result in harm to the character of the local area contrary to the Elmbridge Development Plan. The policies where harm has been identified are the most relevant for determining the proposal and are as follows: • Policy CS10 – Cobham, Oxshott, Stoke D’Abernon and Downside • Policy CS17 – Local Character, Density and Design • Policy DM2 – Design and amenity • Policy DM10 – Housing…”

“OFFICIAL OFFICIAL results in some harm to the character of the area due to the introduction of back- land development, reduction of spaciousness and uncharacteristic plot size. As such, it would be contrary to Policies CS10, CS17, DM2 and DM10.”

Officer report

The main planning issues

Officers found some harm from back-land development, smaller plots and reduced spaciousness, but considered the effect on the street and local area limited.

“On the basis of the above, the proposal under consideration here is considered to be an improvement to the previously refused proposal on 2025/0603. The amendments to the layout and design as well as the reductions in size, mass and bulk, mean the proposal relates more appropriately within the streetscape and is generally more respectful of the character of the area.”

“This, together with the reductions in scale, mass and bulk and improved design and appearance of the houses, means the harm to the character and appearance of the street and local area would be significantly less than that identified on the previous scheme and is now considered to be on the lesser end of the scale of harm.”

Officer report

What residents said

Sixty-nine objection letters raised concerns including overdevelopment, local character, neighbour impacts, traffic, parking, biodiversity, drainage and the size of the homes.

“A total of 69 letters of objection have been received from approximately 43 addresses, including one from the Cobham & Downside Residents Association, as summarised below: • The proposal represents overdevelopment of the site. • It will harm the character of the area. • The scale of development is excessive and conflicts with that urban grain and character of the area.”

“OFFICIAL OFFICIAL • It will cause the loss of garden land and adversely impact biodiversity and the natural environment. • The proposed houses do not have garages or EV chargers. • No construction management plan has been provided. • It will increase traffic congestion in the area. • The proposal conflicts with Elmbridge Plan Policies and the Design Code. • The design of the proposed development would not provide suitable light for the new homes.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and the agent addressed the sub-committee.

What members decided

Members concluded that the layout and scale would harm the area’s character and that the homes’ size would not meet identified borough housing needs.

“Having reviewed the relevant material planning considerations, Members concluded the proposed development would be harmful to the areas character due to its layout and scale. In addition, Members concluded the proposed housing units by virtue of their size did not provide housing units that meet the identified housing need in the borough. Accordingly, the Sub-Committee resolved to…”

Minutes

The committee vote

The sub-committee resolved to refuse permission, contrary to the officer recommendation.

“Refuse permission, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons:”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

Permission was refused because the development was considered incongruous and dominant, and its density, floor area and additional bedroom potential failed to meet housing needs.

“The proposal would, by virtue of its size, height, scale, mass, positioning, plot coverage and design result in a development that not only fails to respect the established and prevailing pattern of development and sparse urban grain that characterises area but would also be incongruous and dominant form of development that is out of keeping with the existing built character of the area.”

“The proposal, by virtue of the density of the development, excessive internal floor area and upper floor accommodation capable of use as additional bedrooms, fail to meet the identified…”

Minutes