144-home residential development at Land West of Woodstock Lane North, Long Ditton

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 144 homes, open space, drainage, landscaping, play areas, a pumping station and associated works.

“Application:2025/2018 Case officer:Jack Trendall Proposal:Outline application for a residential development, with open space, drainage, landscaping, play areas, pumping station and all other associated works following the demolition of all existing structures. All matters reserved with the exception of vehicular access into the site from Woodstock Lane North.”

“Flood Risk SPD 2016 Parking SPD 2020 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) Act 1990 Relevant planning history 5. Planning history: ReferenceDescriptionDecision 2025/1325 Screening Opinion as to whether an Environmental Impact Assessment is required for the proposed redevelopment of the site to provide up to 150 residential dwellings, associated access and parking, drainage and landscaping Environmental Impact Assessment Not Required ESH/1970/0 653 Display of…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended granting outline permission subject to a legal agreement securing affordable housing, play areas, infrastructure contributions and other measures.

“Conclusion 279. Consequently, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions and the receipt of a Section 106 agreement to secure affordable housing, areas of play, financial contributions to NHS Surrey Heartlands, Elmbridge Green Spaces and Surrey Police, financial contribution for biodiversity net gain monitoring, a travel plan auditing fee, bus service improvements and a financial contribution to upgrade public bridleway 25 and S106…”

“Recommendation: Grant outline planning permission, subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure affordable housing, areas of play, financial contributions to NHS Surrey Heartlands, Elmbridge Green Spaces and Surrey Police, financial contribution for biodiversity net gain monitoring, a travel plan auditing fee, bus service improvements and a financial contribution to upgrade public bridleway 25 and S106 monitoring fees.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or contributions, while highways officers accepted the amended access and mitigation measures.

“10.Affinity Water – No response received. 11.Elmbridge Borough Council Tree Officer – Initially raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the submitted arboricultural information. Following the receipt of additional arboricultural information they confirmed that they had no objection subject to recommended conditions.”

“18.Natural England – No objection 19.Naturespace – No objection subject to recommended conditions 20.NHS Surrey Heartlands – No objection subject to the provision of a financial contribution of £63,961 towards healthcare needs arising from the development. 21.Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames - No comment to make. 22.Surrey Bat Group – Initially requested further information from the applicant.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from an objector and the agent.

What members decided

Members concluded that the site did not meet the sustainable-location requirement for the Grey Belt exception and that harm was not outweighed.

“Having reviewed the relevant material planning considerations, Members concluded that the proposed development would not meet the Grey Belt exception due to the site not meeting the sustainable location criteria in paragraph 155 of the NPPF. Therefore, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and there were no very special circumstances which outweighed the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm.”

“There would also be harm to the character of the village green from the potential quantum of development and the rural nature of Woodstock Lane North from the potential need to remove trees and vegetation to widen footpaths.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The 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

The committee found inappropriate Green Belt development, an unsustainable location, harm to the village green and rural lane, and no very special circumstances.

“The proposed development constitutes inappropriate development within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The application site does not meet the definition of Grey Belt as set out in the NPPF as it provides a high degree of spatial and visual openness and performs a strong functional role to achieving Green Belt purpose a and b to prevent unrestricted sprawl and prevent merging The site forms a critical narrow buffer between Long Ditton and Hook, Kingston and Hinchley…”

“The proposal fails to respect the essential characteristics of the village green, openness and permanence, and Green Belt, by introducing domestic lighting, fencing and built up form adjacent to the village green. The development fails to provide a visual transition and effectively creates a pocket of enclosed land. The planned footpath improvements would result in harm to the character of Woodstock Lane North.”

Minutes