Two-bedroom self-build dwelling at Land adjacent to Bavins, Mark Way, Godalming

What was proposed

The application proposed a two-bedroom self-build dwelling with access from Mark Way, off-street parking, and space for three cars.

“Location: Land adjacent to, Bavins, Mark Way, Godalming, GU7 2BW Proposal: Erection of a two bedroom dwelling with access off of Mark Way with off street parking (self-build).”

“Erection of a two bedroom dwelling with access off of Mark Way with off street parking.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was vacant woodland between two homes, protected by a tree preservation order, beside a private road without a footpath or street lighting.

“The application site is located on Mark way and consists of an area of woodland between two residential properties. The entirety of the site is protected by a TPO.”

“The site is vacant from development with a less sparely vegetated area to the front of the site with a mature oak tree and sweet chestnut tree being the dominant features of the site. The rear of the site is more heavily wooded.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and tree works

An earlier two-bedroom self-build dwelling application was withdrawn, while tree works were approved with conditions in November 2024.

“Relevant planning history. Reference: Description: Decision Summary: Appeal: 24/P/01826 Erection of a detached 2 bedroom dwelling with rooflights, associated access arrangements and landscaping (self build) Withdrawn 06/03/2025 N/A”

“24/T/00246 Group of Laurel (near frontage of Mark Way) and one Holly - to be remove and scrub to be cleared and removed (Tree Preservation Order No. 7 of 2024). Tree Works Approved With Conditions 15/11/2024 N/A”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the dwelling limited infilling in a village, appropriately designed for its woodland setting, and acceptable for neighbours, highways and future occupants subject to conditions.

“It is considered that the proposed development would comply with the relevant local and national policies. Specifically, the proposed development would be considered limited infilling in a village and therefore would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.”

“Approve - subject to the following condition(s) and reason(s) :-”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, environmental health, the tree officer and Surrey Wildlife Trust raised no objections subject to conditions, while several consultees made no comment.

“Internal consultees Head of Environmental Health and Licensing: no objection subject to the recommended condition.”

“Surrey Wildlife Trust: no objection subject to the recommended conditions.”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

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

Members’ discussion

Members discussed the village location, Green Belt policy, tree removal and management, access, parking, construction, lighting, design, sustainability and surrounding development.

“Members considered the layout of the site, the extent of tree removal and management, the proposed access and parking arrangements, and potential impacts from construction activity and lighting. Clarification was provided by officers in relation to tree works, access arrangements, and proposed lighting controls, which were secured through conditions.”

“Some Members raised concerns regarding whether the site should be regarded as being within a village for the purposes of Green Belt policy, while others noted that this was a matter of planning judgement and placed weight on the officer’s assessment and relevant case law. Members also commented on the design, sustainability credentials, and relationship of the proposal to surrounding development.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to approve was carried, with 11 votes in favour, one against and no abstentions; one member did not vote.

“The Chair noted that, as Cllr Miah had joined the meeting after the officer’s presentation, it was agreed that he would not take part in the debate and vote on the item.”

“The Chair moved the motion to approve application 25/P/00992 for the reasons as set out in the Officer’s report. The motion was seconded by Councillor Potter and was carried.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The application was approved for the reasons set out in the officer assessment.

“RESOLVED: That application 25/P/00992 be approved, for the reasons as set out in the Officer’s report.”

Minutes