Hotel extension at Premier Inn Heathside Hotel, Burgh Heath

“This is a full planning application for the erection of a replacement front part of the hotel , which would be larger than the existing with an increase in 33 rooms over three storeys. The front part of the existing hotel with restaurant would be demolished and the new hotel would incorporate a new restaurant with 72 covers, bar and staff facilities. The restaurant would only be for guests of the hotel in contrast to being open to non-guests.”

“The proposed extension mainly remains within the footprint of the existing restaurant, but would bring the building back from road by a further 8 metres. The principal west-facing elevation of the proposed extension has been split into a series of vertical gabled bays with dual pitched roofs. The larger bays project out at first floor and are clad using terracotta hanging clay tiles, with the ground floor and recessed bays finished in brickwork to match the existing…”

“97/10500/F Removal of existing conservatory and erection of single storey side and rear extensions together with the conversion of the leisure facility into extra bedrooms (Amended plans showing crate store re-located within the existing building foot print). Granted 22 October 1997”

“88/06290/F Proposed three storey extension of 28 bedroom units with on suite bathrooms, swimming pool, saunas, mini gymnasium, conservatory and first floor staff accommodation with associated parking. Granted 6 June 1988”

“Subject to conditions, it is considered that the proposals are acceptable with regard to the se matters. There are a number of benefits associated with the application, including the use of previously developed land and buildings; high quality design; support of tourism and third party suppliers; and the provision of a sustainable and energy efficient extension to the building.”

“The proposal would also provide economic benefits to the local economy both during and post-construction. These factors carry significant weight in favour of the application. There are therefore considered to be no substantive grounds to refuse the application and material considerations which weigh in favour of the application it is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out below.”

“Planning Committee Agenda Item: 2026 25/01385/F Issue Response Noise & disturbance See paragraph 6.9 Inconvenience during construction See paragraph 6.16 Increase in traffic and congestion…”

“Thames Water have raised no objection on this matter. Support - Community / regeneration benefit See paragraph 6.1”

“During the debate, Members raised concerns regarding the design, scale and appearance of the proposed redevelopment. It was acknowledged that the current 1970s building it was replacing was regarded locally as out of keeping with the surrounding area. However, concerns remained on the size of the proposed replacement building was which was considered to be of an excessive bulk.”

“Members discussed car parking arrangements at the hotel and concerns raised by local residents about future parking charges and the use of parking spaces by hotel guests. Officers advised that the charging of parking fees fell outside the scope of the planning application.”

“The Committee then voted and RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED contrary to officer recommendation on the grounds that:”

“1) The proposal, by reason of the bulk, scale and massing of the extension, would be out of keeping with neighbouring properties and the proposed design and architectural features of the extension are bland, contrary to Policy DES1 of the Reigate & Banstead Development Management Plan (2019).”