Demolition of the existing detached dwelling house at 23 Birds Hill Road, Oxshott, Leatherhead

A similar scheme recently approved nearby

Officers noted a two-storey replacement dwelling with a basement in a similar position on the site had recently been granted permission under a different application.

“In commencing his introduction, the Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that since publication of the agenda, a proposal for a two-storey replacement dwelling at the site (application no. 2026/0344) had been granted planning…”

Minutes

Four further letters of representation

Four further letters of representation had been received on the application.

“Four further letters of representation had been received.”

Minutes

An objector and the agent spoke

An objector and the applicant's agent addressed the committee on the application.

Found out of character and car dependent

Members concluded the proposal would be out of character due to its mass, bulk and height, and that excess parking would reinforce car dependency.

“Having reviewed the relevant material planning considerations, Members concluded that the proposed development would be out of character with the low density area due to its mass, bulk and height which significantly exceeded the prevailing plot area ratio of the estate. The proposed parking provision exceeded the Council’s parking standards and would reinforce car dependency which failed to encourage sustainable travel.”

Minutes

Affordable housing viability not demonstrated

Members considered the site should be assessed together with an adjoining site in the same ownership for affordable housing purposes, which the applicant had not shown was unviable.

“The adjoining site, which benefitted from planning permission, was in the same ownership and was considered to constitute a single planning unit and a single development, therefore it should be considered together with the proposal for the purposes of affordable housing. The applicant had failed to demonstrate that the two sites considered together would not be viable to deliver an affordable housing contribution.”

Minutes

Refused against officers' recommendation

The committee refused permission against officers' recommendation, citing the development's scale, bulk and visual harm, and the unresolved affordable housing contribution.

“The proposal by reason of its scale, mass, bulk and plot ratio would be overly dominant, cramped and contrived and be perceived as flatted development that would be a visually intrusive form of over- development that would substantially harm the form, proportion and appearance of the site, the character and appearance of the area and the prevailing character of the existing urban grain.”

Minutes