45 older-person homes at Glenview, West Horsley, Leatherhead

The site and surroundings

The 1.25-hectare site contained a home, outbuildings, trees, hedgerows and paddocks, within the East Horsley settlement boundary beside rural and heritage assets.

“Site Description The site extends to 1.25 hectares and is located within the settlement boundary of East Horsley but falls within the parish of West Horsley. It comprises an existing single residential property known as Glenview, and several outbuildings. The property is enclosed by mature trees and hedgerows along its boundary and to the centre of the site, with several areas of grassland/paddocks divided by timber post and rail fencing.”

“To the west is the site of Sheepleas House which is currently undergoing development for four detached houses following the grant of planning permission in March 2025 (Ref: 24/P/00520). To the east are several detached residential properties on Fearn Close, the gardens of which adjoin the site’s eastern boundary and St Martins Court sheltered housing.”

Officer report

Earlier proposals and changes

The original 51-home scheme was reduced and redesigned after concerns about scale, density, layout, height and its relationship with neighbouring and rural areas.

“Therefore, the Plan and its policies are regarded as out-of-date in terms of paragraph 11 of the NPPF, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, or 'tilted balance', applies when making decisions on planning applications. The original proposals were for a larger scheme comprising 51 dwellings with a large block in the centre of the site comprising a mix of apartments and houses and a large car park on the Epsom Road frontage adjacent to Polepit Cottage.”

“The revised development proposals represent a high-quality design, which takes inspiration from the local vernacular of the surrounding built form and landscape character. The scale and massing of the built form on the site has been reduced to be more sympathetic to the site’s transitional character between the more urban areas to the east and rural areas to the west.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the revised design high quality and found that housing need, older-person accommodation, affordable housing and other public benefits outweighed identified impacts.

“The proposed development will make a valuable contribution to housing supply in Guildford and a contribution to off-site affordable housing provision has been secured which will have broader benefits in meeting local housing need. The provision of housing for older people has significant benefits, in terms of: meeting an identified specialist housing need for which the PPG confirms is ‘critical’ at a national level; providing accommodation more suited to the…”

“The development will have a less than substantial harm at the lowest end of that spectrum to the heritage significance of the adjacent Grade II Polepit Cottage. Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states that ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use’.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two speakers addressed the committee against the application, one spoke in support, and Councillor Catherine Young spoke in support.

Members’ questions

Members questioned highway safety, the enforceability of the age restriction and the housing mix, and officers provided clarification.

“First-floor windows facing Fern Close would be screened by the hedge and new landscaping, with separation distances exceeding 35 meters. • Public benefits included biodiversity net gain, contributions towards off- site affordable housing, health provision, policing, and public transport, as well as a new pedestrian crossing and a reduction of the A246 speed limit to 30mph, subject to a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).”

“Members queried highway safety, the enforceability of the age restriction, and the housing mix, receiving clarification from officers.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The Chair moved approval, the motion was seconded by Councillor Hives and it was carried.

“The Chair moved the motion to approve application 24-P-01626, with delegated authority granted to the Assistant Director of Planning to grant planning permission subject to a S106 agreement being entered into and subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the Officer’s report. The motion was seconded by Councillor Hives and was carried.”

Minutes

What was decided

The application was approved with delegated authority to grant permission after a Section 106 agreement, subject to the report’s conditions and reasons.

“RESOLVED: That application 24-P-01626 be approved, with delegated authority granted to the Assistant Director of Planning to grant planning permission subject to a S106 agreement being entered into and subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the Officer’s report.”

Minutes