Two detached houses at Land West Of Tippuk, Packhorse Road, Bessels Green

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing existing stables and ancillary buildings and building two detached homes, garages, access, landscaping and a new driveway.

“- 25/03541/FUL Date expired 31 March 2026 Proposal: Demolition of existing stables and ancillary buildings, erection of two detached dwellings with solar panels of two storey design (with accommodation in roofspace) to be served by detached garages (with accommodation above) and introduction of vehicle and pedestrian access onto Packhorse Road. Associated landscaping and new driveway.”

Officer report

The officers’ main findings

Officers considered the development an acceptable infill scheme, with Plot 2 suitably designed and positioned within an area of large detached homes.

“46 Policy EN5 of the ADMP makes it clear that proposed development within the National Landscape shall both conserve and enhance the landscape and setting of the landscape. 47 Paragraph 189 of the NPPF states that ‘Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues’.”

“Overall, it is considered that given the location of the site as a pocket of undeveloped land in an area which is surrounded by properties, the development would essentially comprise an infill. 50 As a consequence of the area being characterised by residential properties, it is considered that the principle of providing two large dwellings would not appear incongruous within this area of the National Landscape.”

Officer report

What residents said

Forty-five objection letters raised concerns about ownership, access, privacy, character, traffic, trees, ecology, drainage, heritage and overdevelopment.

“Representations 35 45 letters of objection have been received relating to the following issues: • The developer does not own the access; • The developer has not notified any neighbours/owners; • The new road is not appropriate; • Impact on neighbouring privacy; • The grass verge has been maintained by neighbouring properties; • The development is out of scale and on in keeping with the sites context; • The garages are not appropriate; • The site plan does not represent the…”

“Failure to demonstrate Biodiversity Net Gain; • Housing benefit does not outweigh the harms; • Trees have been removed prior to submission; • There is no site notice; • Building large modern housing is out of character for Chipstead; • Arboricultural report identifies T2 for removal, but the Tree Officer has stated that T4 is due for removal; • The application should not be considered as one application; • The works could see roots of trees within neighbouring gardens…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a speaker against the application, a speaker for it, parish representatives and local members.

The vote

The motion to accept the officer recommendation as amended was lost, after which members moved and seconded refusal.

“It was moved by the Chairman that the recommendations within the report, as amended by the Late Observations, be agreed.”

“Members discussed the report. Some members considered that the obscured windows on the dwelling on Plot One would be sufficient to protect the privacy of the neighbouring properties and viewed the dwellings as in-keeping with neighbouring properties in size and massing. They considered that the angling of the properties away from the street would prevent them from negatively impacting the street scene.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee refused permission because Plot 2 would be incongruous, unduly prominent and harmful to the area’s visual qualities and National Landscape.

“Resolved: That planning permission be refused on the following grounds:”

“The proposals, by reason of the bulk, form, massing and design of the Plot 2 dwelling, would appear incongruous and unduly prominent and would fail to conserve the spatial and visual qualities of the area and National Landscape as a result. The harm would be exacerbated by Plot 2 being sited at a higher ground level than the properties along Packhorse Road.”

Minutes

Why the committee refused

Members found Plot 2’s bulk, form, massing and design harmful, with its higher ground level worsening its prominence and impact.

“It was moved and duly seconded that the application be refused, on the grounds that the proposals, by reason of the bulk, form, massing and design of the Plot 2 dwelling, would appear incongruous and unduly prominent and would fail to conserve the spatial and visual qualities of the area and National Landscape as a result. The harm would be exacerbated by Plot 2 being sited at a higher ground level than the properties along Packhorse Road.”

Minutes