Eight flats at 4 The Drive, Banstead

“This is a full application for demolition of the detached, 5-bedroom, dwelling at No. The Drive and the erection of a part 2 storey, part 3 storey building comprising 8 flats together with parking, landscaping and associated works.”

“The application site comprises a detached, two-storey dwelling on the northern side of The Drive. The site lies on the northern side of The Drive, towards the eastern end of the road near the junction with Brighton Road. The dwelling is set back from the road, accessed across a grassed verge area and sits between a recent development of semi-detached houses to the east and Banstead Methodist Church to the west.”

“The surrounding area is primarily residential with neighbouring dwellings largely detached, two storey houses. To the east are two pairs of recently constructed semi-detached houses and beyond them is the Banstead Guides Headquarters. To the west is Banstead Methodist Church which has an unusual design with a low eaves and tall pyramidal roof design, and beyond the church is Woodgavel, a cul-de sac of detached houses.”

“23/00087/F Demolition of detached 5-bedroom dwelling with the erection of a 3- storey building comprising 9 flats Refused 03.04.2023 Appeal dismissed 20.05.2024”

“Planning Committee Agenda Item: 6 16 th July 2025 25/00276/F the character of the area and the number of parking spaces proposed (1 per dwelling). The Inspector did, however, conclude that the proposal would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 4a The Drive with regard to outlook. The Inspector commented ‘When viewed from the windows and garden of 4a The Drive, the proposed building would be highly visible.”

“The proposed building has been reduced in height on the eastern side to two storeys, and would extend to the same depth as 4a on this side before stepping away and extending beyond the rear elevation. The proposal would pass the 45 degree assessment in the horizontal plain and therefore is not considered to result in harmful impact in terms of loss of light to this neighbour.”

“The application proposes 8 parking spaces to serve the proposed 8 dwellings. Whilst this is below the minimum parking standards, the Inspector in the appeal concluded that a similar ratio of parking spaces (9 car parking spaces for 9 flats) would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or highway safety, due to parking.”

“Highway Authority: The County Highway Authority has assessed the application on safety, capacity and policy grounds and has raised no objection subject to condition.”

“Note The Highway Authority (HA) objected to application 23/00087 because the application did not include a quantum of parking commensurate with R&BBC parking standards and there was no explanation that the quantum of parking would be adequate. However, the planning inspector who assessed the developer’s appeal did not agree with the HA objection.”

“A member gave a brief overview of the history of the road. There was concern that this application fell below the parking standard as there was parking pressure locally and there was concern over pedestrian safety.”

“There was concern that this development would result in bulk, scale and massing and there was concern regarding the depth of the building. It was felt that the building could prevent daylight coming into a neighbouring property until the…”

“A reason for refusal was proposed by Councillor Harp and seconded by Councillor Snuggs, whereupon the Committee voted and RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds that:”

“The proposed development would result, by virtue of the bulk, scale, massing and depth of the proposed building, and limited separation distance to neighbouring property 4a The Drive, in an adverse overbearing and dominating impact and loss of outlook upon the occupants of 4a The Drive. The proposal would thereby be contrary to policy DES1 of the Development Management Plan 2019.”