Eight family homes at Burghfield, Send Hill, Send, Woking

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Guildford Planning Committee on 7 Jan 2026.

25/P/00110Approved

What was proposed

Eight three- and four-bedroom homes, landscaping and a new access were proposed after demolishing the existing dwelling and garden buildings.

“Location: Burghfield, Send Hill, Send, Woking, GU23 7HR Proposal: Erection of 8 new three and four bedroom family dwellings with associated hard and soft landscaping and formation of new access to Send Hill, following demolition of Burghfield and assorted garden out buildings.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 0.345-hectare site contains a bungalow and garden, with a footpath and Green Belt boundary behind it.

“The application site measures approximately 0.345 hectares, and comprises a detached single storey dwelling 'Burghfield' and the rear garden of Hawthorn Place to the north. The site is located to the western side of Send Hill. The area is characterised by residential development set within a linear pattern with newer spurs of residential development extending to the east and west of Send Hill.”

“To the rear (western boundary) runs footpath F57 which extends along the rear of properties both to the north and south. The Green Belt boundary is to the immediate west.”

Officer report

Planning history

No relevant planning history was identified, while amended plans addressed concerns about development levels, vehicle access and ecology.

“Added value: Amended plans and information was sought and received to address concerns regarding the amount of development, large vehicle access and ecology matters.”

“Relevant planning history. No relevant planning history.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the scheme would add seven homes, meet space and amenity standards, and avoid unacceptable character or residential harm.

“The proposal would result in a net increase of 7 dwellings. Each would comply with the Nationally Described Space Standards and include private outdoor amenity space. The proposal would be of a suitable scale and design, no unacceptable harm to character would arise. No unacceptable harm to residential amenity would arise. S.106 contributions are required to secure the necessary mitigation for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and Biodiversity Net Gain.”

“RECOMMENDATION: That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning to grant planning permission subject to a S106 agreement being entered into to secure the provision of SANG and SAMM Contributions in accordance with the adopted tariff of the SPA Avoidance Strategy to mitigate against the impact on the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area and to secure Biodiversity Net Gain and its monitoring in accordance with Policy P7 of the LPDMP and NPPF.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, wildlife, water, environmental health, waste and trees raised no objection subject to conditions or mitigation.

“Surrey Wildlife Trust: request the BNG metric is updated to reflect the GBC adopted target of at least 20%, amend the Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment to take into account the guidance regarding habitat creation in private gardens, clarification sought regarding on site trees and their condition; clarification on the characterisation of the bat roost and species.”

“Internal consultees Head of Environmental Health and Licensing: No objection subject to a condition regarding a Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan.”

Officer report

What members discussed

Members considered the neighbourhood plan, local character, rear buffer, amenity, condition details and sewerage capacity but found insufficient grounds for refusal.

“In debate, Members acknowledged concerns raised in relation to the Send Neighbourhood Plan and the impact on local character, noting that while the development was not entirely in keeping with the existing pattern of development along Send Hill, this did not attract sufficient weight to justify refusal.”

“Members expressed some regret that the scheme did not retain a larger buffer to the rear, but accepted that the impact on amenity was not considered unacceptable. Concerns were also raised about the level of detail reserved for conditions and the reliance on post-permission approvals, as well as issues relating to sewerage capacity.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee voted unanimously to approve the application, with 13 votes for, none against and no abstentions.

“The Chair then moved the motion to approve application 25/P/00110, with delegated authority granted to the Assistant Director of Planning to grant planning permission subject to a S106 agreement being entered into to secure the provision of SANG and SAMM Contributions in accordance with the adopted tariff of the SPA Avoidance Strategy to mitigate against the impact on the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area and to secure Biodiversity Net Gain and its monitoring in…”

“RESOLVED: That application 25/P/00110 be approved, with delegated authority granted to the Assistant Director of Planning to grant planning permission subject to a S106 agreement being entered into to secure the provision of SANG and SAMM Contributions in accordance with the adopted tariff of the SPA Avoidance Strategy to mitigate against the impact on the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area and to secure Biodiversity Net Gain and its monitoring in accordance with…”

Minutes

The members' reasons

“Overall, Members considered that, despite reservations, there was insufficient justification to depart from the officer recommendation.”

Minutes

Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.

Sources

  • Guildford Planning Committee minutes, 7 January 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Guildford's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Council
Guildford
Date
Wednesday 7 January 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Approved
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)
Application
The application (council website)

This committee's year

36 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 5 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →