13-home redevelopment at 2 Fairmile Lane, Cobham

What was proposed

The application sought 11 flats, two houses, garages, storage, parking and associated works after demolishing the existing house and outbuildings.

“Application: 2025/2138 Case officer: Margarita Romanovich Proposal: A detached two-storey building with rooms in the roof space, dormer windows and rear balconies containing 11 flats and 2 detached two-storey houses with rooms in the roof space, associated garages, bin and cycle stores and parking following the demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings.”

“2025/2425 Confirmation of Compliance with Conditions: 3 (Materials samples), 4 (Landscaping - scheme), 11 (Surface Water Drainage Scheme), 12 (Surface Water Flooding Verification Report), 13 (Insulation - Residential to residential), 14 (External Lightning Scheme), 15 (Ecological Enhancement Plan) and 18 (Additional Arboricultural Information) of planning permission 2023/2545.”

Officer report

The site and its constraints

The site contained a detached house on Fairmile Lane and was affected by surface-water flood risk, a protected-site buffer and a classified road.

“The application site contains a detached two-storey house on the eastern side of Fairmile Lane in Cobham.”

“Surface Water Flooding (Medium and High Risk) • Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area 5km buffer • Classified (C) Road…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission subject to a legal agreement, considering the housing benefits, viability evidence and other impacts acceptable with conditions.

“RECOMMENDATION A Grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure the necessary mitigation towards the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area within 3 months of the resolution to grant permission, or a longer period as agreed by the Head of Planning and Environmental Health.”

“RECOMMENDATION B If a satisfactory legal agreement to secure the necessary mitigation towards the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area is not received within 3 months of the resolution to grant permission, or a longer period as agreed by the Head of Planning and Environmental Health, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Environmental Health to refuse planning permission for the following reason:”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, environmental health, trees, flooding, ecology and other consultees raised no objection or accepted the proposal subject to conditions or further details.

“Environmental Health Officer (Noise & Pollution) – No objection subject to conditions.”

“Surrey County Council Transport and Development – No objection subject to conditions.”

Officer report

What residents said

Thirty-two representations objected on grounds including overdevelopment, character, affordable housing, traffic, privacy, flooding, biodiversity and parking.

“Needs to be assessed together with previous applications • Overdevelopment and excessive massing • Does not comply with the policies and principles outlined in the Elmbridge Core Strategy and the Elmbridge Development Management Plan • The impact on the area’s sustainability and infrastructure • Out of character of the surrounding area • Detrimental impact on traffic, parking and highway safety • Overlooking and loss of privacy concerns • Loss of light and overbearing •…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Les Carter addressed the committee as an objector, and Tom Grimshaw addressed it as the applicant.

Members’ concerns

Members concluded that dormers and additional front parking would harm the site’s spacious, verdant character and the surrounding area.

“Having reviewed the relevant material planning considerations and applying the tilted balance, Members concluded that the proposed development, by reason of the introduction of dormers on the apartment block and additional parking spaces at the front of the site, would be harmful to the spacious and verdant character of the site and the area.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission contrary to the officer recommendation because the development would harm the character and street scene and lacked protected-site mitigation.

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

“Due to the combination of the dormer windows at roof level together with the dominance of the associated parking paraphernalia at the front of the site, without the ability to ensure screening in perpetuity, the proposal creates an intensification of development which would be detrimental to the character of the area and the street scene. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies CS10, CS17 of the Core…”

Minutes