Three new houses at 1A Carmalt Gardens, Hersham, Walton-on-Thames

What was proposed

The application sought demolition of a bungalow and garage to build three two-storey houses with roof rooms, dormers, stores and landscaping.

“Application: 2025/1764 Case officer: Tobi Agboola Proposal: A pair of semi-detached two-storey houses with rooms in the roof space and a detached two-storey house with rooms in the roof space, dormer windows, bin and cycle stores and associated landscaping following demolition of the existing bungalow and garage.”

“This application seeks the erection of a pair of semi-detached two-storey houses with rooms in the roof space and a detached two-storey house with rooms in the roof space, dormer windows, bin and cycle stores and associated landscpaing following demolition of the existing bungalow and garage.”

Officer report

The site

The site was a bungalow on the northern side of Carmalt Gardens, with no stated planning constraints.

“The application site consists of a bungalow located on the northern side of Carmalt Gardens in Hersham, Walton-on-Thames.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions covered a dwelling house, a single-storey house and a detached bungalow.

“Reference Description Decision WAL/1954/2794 For the erection of a dwelling house Granted WAL/1955/3433 For the erection of a single storey house Granted WAL/1956/3801 Erection of a detached bungalow Granted…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission, giving significant weight to three smaller homes and finding no significant harm that outweighed the benefits.

“113.In this instance, the proposed development would provide the public benefit of contributing three new dwellings toward the borough’s substantial identified housing need at a density that makes efficient use of the land. Also, the proposal would deliver 3-bed houses which meets the area of greatest identified need for smaller units within the borough and at a density that makes efficient use of the land.”

“116.In terms of drawbacks, the design is not considered wholly acceptable, in particular, the design and massing at the rear could be improved. The harm to the character and appearance of the area is not considered to be significant and is on the lesser end of the scale.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Council and specialist consultees raised no objections, subject to conditions or informatives covering design, waste, ecology and highways.

“Elmbridge Borough Council: Conservation and Design – No objection, subject to a condition. Joint Waste Solutions – No objection, subject to informatives. Surrey Bat Group – No objection, subject to a condition. Surrey Wildlife Trust – No objection, subject to conditions. Elmbridge Borough Council: Trees – No objection. Surrey County Council: County Highway Authority – No objection, subject to conditions and informatives.”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

Ben Morris addressed the sub-committee as an objector.

Members’ concerns

Members considered three dwellings excessive and thought two would be more appropriate for the site.

“Having reviewed the relevant material planning considerations, Members concluded that the proposed development of three dwellings would be excessive and Members were of the opinion that two would be more appropriate for that particular site. Accordingly, the Sub-Committee resolved to…”

Minutes

The decision

The sub-committee refused permission contrary to the officer recommendation.

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

Minutes

Why permission was refused

Members found the proposal cramped and dominant, harmful to neighbours, damaging to parking conditions and lacking suitable outdoor space for unit three.

“The proposal, by virtue of its scale, plot coverage, and proximity to boundaries and adjoining neighbours, would result in a development that is cramped and overly dominant. As such, the proposal would produce an incongruous form of development that adversely impacts the character and appearance of the area…”

“The proposed rear amenity space to unit 3 is considered contrived and cramped in size so would not provide suitable outdoor living space provision for the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings. As such, the proposal would fail to accord with Policies DM2 and DM10 of the Development Management Plan 2015 and the Elmbridge Design Code SPD 2024.”

Minutes