House extensions and alterations at Brook Cottage, East Horsley, Leatherhead

What was proposed

The application sought extensive side and front extensions, a larger roof, altered windows, a new access, landscaping and a car port.

“Location: Brook Cottage, Pine Walk, East Horsley, Leatherhead, KT24 5AG Proposal: Erection of a two storey side extension, a part two storey part single storey side extension, front extensions, roof enlargement and alterations to include an increase in ridge height and the enlargement of the first floor, changes to fenestration to include the insertion of rooflights, landscaping changes, including a new vehicular access, and the erection of a car port (description amended…”

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two storey side extension, a part single, part two storey side extension, front extensions, and an upwards extension to enlarge the first floor following the removal of the existing roof.”

Officer report

The site and its character

The dwelling was built in 1954 in Chown-style Arts and Crafts design, with distinctive architectural features and protected trees nearby.

“The application site is situated on the western side of Pine Walk and comprises a two storey detached dwelling that was constructed in 1954 in the Chown style, a distinct 'Arts and Craft' style. The dwelling features a hipped roof form with a prominent gabled projection with exposed timber framing at the front, as well as a cat slide.”

“The dwelling occupies an angled plot position and benefits from an in and out driveway. The dwelling also benefits from an integral and attached garage and further space for parking in front. One tree subject to a Tree Protection Order is situated within the frontage of the site. Two other trees either side of the application site are also subject to Tree protection Orders.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier proposals for replacement dwellings were withdrawn, while a 1986 extension and the original 1954 dwelling were approved.

“Reference: Description: Decision Summary: Appeal: 24/P/00844 Construction of new self build dwelling and garage following demolition of existing dwelling (amended plans received 26/06/2024) Withdrawn 28/01/2025 N/A”

“21/P/02661 Proposed erection of a replacement two storey detached dwelling with detached garage/car port following demolition of the existing dwelling. Withdrawn 24/03/2022 N/A”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal harmed the non-designated heritage asset and building character, while protected-species information was insufficient.

“Insufficient information has also been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on protected species.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

The highway authority and parish council raised no objections, the Tree Officer accepted the proposal subject to conditions, and Surrey Wildlife Trust did not comment.

“Tree Officer: No objection, subject to conditions.”

“Surrey Wildlife Trust: No comments received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two people spoke against the application and two spoke in support before the committee considered it.

What members debated

Members disagreed about heritage status, consistency with another decision, neighbour impact and whether the extensions would harm the building and street scene.

“The Committee considered the above-mentioned application for extensions and alterations to a dwelling described as being of “Chown style”. During the discussion, members considered whether the property should be regarded as a non-designated heritage asset. Some members noted that the house displayed features associated with Chown designs but was not an original Chown house.”

“Other members expressed concern about the scale of the proposed development, which they felt would result in the loss of the building’s original character. They considered the extensions to be overly dominant and unsympathetic, leading to harm to the local street-scene.”

Minutes

How members voted

A motion to approve the application contrary to the officer recommendation failed; the committee then carried the motion to refuse it.

“Councillor Oven moved the motion to approve application 25/P/00808, contrary to the officer recommendation, on the basis that the dwelling was not a non-designated heritage asset and that the proposal complied with Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan. The motion was seconded by Councillor Bigmore and a vote was held. The motion failed.”

“The Chair then moved the motion to vote on officer recommendation to refuse application 25/P/00808. The motion was seconded by Councillor Miah and was carried.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused for the reasons set out in the officer report.

“RESOLVED: That application 25/P/00808 be refused for the reasons as detailed in the report.”

Minutes