Four detached homes at Land south of Green Lane, West Horsley

What was proposed

Four detached four-bedroom homes with garages, amenity space, landscaping and pedestrian and vehicle access from Edenwood Close were proposed.

“Location: Land south of Green Lane, West Horsley, GU23 6PQ Proposal: Construction of four detached 4-bedroom dwellings, together with single bay garages, associated amenity space, landscaping and the formation of a pedestrian and vehicular access from Edenwood Close.”

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of 4no. 4-bed dwellings, landscaping and associated development, with access via Edenwood Close, leading onto Green Lane.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The undeveloped pasture field lies outside the settlement boundary in the Green Belt, beside existing and proposed housing forming part of allocation A39.

“The site lies just outside the settlement boundary of East and West Horsley, which is adjacent to the east. To the east is the property known as Oakland Farm, which is a large two storey detached dwelling with outbuildings and amenity space. It is accessed directly from Green Lane which itself…”

“Regarding designations, the site is located in the Green Belt. The site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is therefore at low risk of fluvial flooding. Surface water flooding is limited to a small section adjacent to Green Lane to the northeast of the site. The site does not form part of a heritage asset and the there are none in proximity. The site is also located within the 400m to 5km THBSPA buffer zone.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, considering the site grey belt and sustainable, with acceptable highway, design, amenity, drainage, landscaping and ecological effects subject to controls.

“As will be set out in the report, the site constitutes Grey Belt land given the provisions of the NPPF”

“The provision of 4no. 4-bedroom dwellings is considered appropriate given the rural context of the site. The elevations and materials offer a degree of visual interest and variation to the design of the dwellings and are in keeping with those in proximity to the site on Green Lane. The scheme does not give rise to neighbouring amenity concerns.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The County Highway Authority recommended refusal over the location and limited sustainable transport, while other consultees generally raised no objections subject to conditions.

“County Highway Authority (CHA) - Recommends refusal as it is considered that the site is located in an unsustainable location with limited active travel opportunities and access to public transport services, and where the only realistic means of transport to access the site would be the private car.”

“NatureSpace – no objections subject to conditions requiring further surveys on the presence of Great Crested Newts.”

Officer report

What residents raised

Twenty-one neighbour representations raised concerns about access, rural character, Green Belt policy, ecology, design, sustainability, drainage and pressure on services.

“Access • Insufficient width of Green Lane to accommodate additional traffic and there is a distinct lack of passing points • Green Lane is not a safe access for all users and is prone to flooding • Edenwood Close is an inappropriate access that is in private ownership, with no designated capacity with additional vehicle trips set to deteriorate • The layout of the scheme poses a risk to residents and children and is not sufficient for emergency services and refuse vehicles…”

“Harm to character of the area • The proposals lead to a cumulative intensification of the built form and urbanisation • Development leads to increased noise, traffic, vehicle movements etc. out of context with the quiet rural character of the area • Site is characterised by mature trees, some of which have been cleared • Proposals fail to deliver an appropriate transition between countryside and built form • Frontage on Green Lane lacks screening and would be visible and…”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

A supporter and the ward councillor speaking against the proposal addressed the committee before the planning officer’s presentation.

What members debated

Members debated highway advice, sustainability, parking, crossing provision, flooding, grey belt status and whether future residents would rely heavily on cars.

“In debate, Members raised concerns regarding the consistency of Surrey County Council Highways’ advice when compared with other applications considered by the Committee, the sustainability of the site’s location, the adequacy of parking and crossing provision, and localised surface water flooding issues raised by residents and the Ward Councillor.”

“Members further debated whether the site should properly be regarded as grey belt. Differing views were expressed, with some Members considering the site remained Green Belt rather than grey belt land. Concern was also expressed that the site was not in a sustainable location and that future occupiers would be heavily reliant on private cars.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Bigmore moved refusal, Councillor Redpath seconded it, and the motion was carried.

“Following debate, Councillor Bigmore moved the motion to refuse the application on the grounds that the proposal constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as the site was not grey belt land, and that the site was not in a sustainable location and would be reliant on the private car, contrary to Policy S1. The motion was seconded by Councillor Redpath and was carried.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The application was refused because members considered it inappropriate Green Belt development on non-grey-belt land in an unsustainable, private-car-dependent location.

“RESOLVED: That application 25/P/01546 be REFUSED on the grounds that the proposal constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as the site was not grey belt land, and that it was not in a sustainable location and would be reliant on the private car, contrary to Policy S1 of the Local Plan.”

Minutes