One two-bedroom bungalow at Land south of The Crossroads, Effingham

What was proposed

The application proposed one single-storey two-bedroom self-build home, with a car port, cycle store and access from The Crossroads.

“Location: Land south of The Crossroads, Effingham, Surrey Proposal: Erection of 1no. single storey 2-bed dwelling house with car port and cycle store/shed with access from The Crossroads (self-build)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The small site lies between existing rear gardens, uses an existing private-road access, and is partly within the conservation area.

“Site description. The application site is a small parcel of land sandwiched between the rear gardens of Nos. 11 and 12 Beech Close, 9 and 10 Manor Gardens and No. The Crossroads. The site forms part of the wider site allocation identified as ENP-SA3 and known as Orchard W alls, within the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan. The entire site benefits from extant permission 21/P/02246 dated 05/08/2022 as varied by application 23/P/00136 dated 21/03/2023.”

“The site lies within an area inset from the Green Belt and within the 5km to 7km buffer zone of the Ockham and Wisley Common Special Protection Area. The site is partly within located within the Effingham Conservation Area.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and appeal

An earlier similar proposal was dismissed on sustainable construction information and affordable housing, while other suggested refusal reasons were not upheld.

“A previous application (reference 22/P/02045) for similar development has been previously considered. The appeal (which was a non-determination appeal) considered five putative reasons for refusal relating to the provision of affordable housing, design and layout, heritage impact, the impact on Plot 8 of the approved Orchard Wells development, and sustainable construction measures.”

“The appeal was dismissed relating to the adequacy of the information in relation to the sustainable construction and in relation to the delivery of affordable housing. The Inspector did not uphold other suggested reasons for refusal. However it is noted that the Inspector concluded that the site was severable and could be delivered independently of the rest of the Orchard Walls development (Paragraph 43 of the appeal).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the revised proposal made efficient use of land, suited the area, protected neighbours and heritage, and had no technical objections.

“The proposed development, in following the conclusions of the previous Inspector would make efficient use of land, be appropriately designed for the scale and character of the area and provide appropriate space for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. The proposals would not impact on the amenities of neighbours and would not have an impact on the neighbouring Conservation Area or the historic wall, which is shown as retained on the submitted plans.”

“There are no technical objections to the proposals and officers consider that the application as presented is appropriate and follows the recommendations of the previous Inspector who reviewed the application in 2024.”

Officer report

Who spoke

One person spoke against the application and one person spoke in support before the committee considered it.

What members debated

Members asked about disputed access rights and whether the route was suitable for emergency and refuse vehicles; officers said civil disputes were not planning matters and the access was sufficient.

“Officers advised that the access arrangements gave rise to civil disputes regarding rights of access, but that such disputes were not material planning considerations. It was further noted that the applicant had served Certificate B and maintained that the requisite access rights existed.”

“In debate, Members sought clarification regarding the rights of access and the practical suitability of the access for emergency and refuse vehicles. Officers reiterated that the Council was not required to determine private civil disputes and advised that, in planning terms, the access was considered sufficient to serve the proposed development, including for servicing and emergency access.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The motion to delegate permission was carried, with twelve votes for, no votes against and no abstentions.

“The Chair moved the motion to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning to grant permission for application 25/P/01449 subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the Officer’s report. The motion was seconded by Councillor Miah and was carried.”

“RESOLVED: That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director of Planning to grant permission for application 25/P/01449 subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the Officer’s report.”

Minutes