One four-bed chalet bungalow at 53 Shelvers Way, Tadworth

What was proposed

The application sought one four-bedroom chalet bungalow behind 53 Shelvers Way, with an extended access drive, parking and landscaping.

“This is a full planning application for the erection of 1 x 4 bed dwelling with associated access, parking and landscaping to the rear of 53 Shelvers Way in Tadworth. The application site is located on the south side of Shelvers Way, which is predominantly residential in character comprised of a mix of large detached and semi-detached dwellings. The road has seen the addition of several new dwellings within rear gardens within recent years.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the design, spacing, parking, highways, trees, ecology and drainage were considered acceptable subject to conditions.

“Planning Committee Agenda Item: 9 3 rd June 2026 25/02207/F The development would provide a level of parking that is in line with the Council’s adopted parking standards, and there would be ample space for vehicle turning within the site. The proposed access and visibility splays have been reviewed by the County Highway Authority who have raised no objection subject to conditions.”

“A number of trees have been removed from the site, however it is proposed to replace these with new trees throughout the new plot and donor property, which would suitably compensate for their loss and provide a soft landscaped backdrop that would complement the area of woodland beyond and soften the appearance of the development site, increasing the sense of spaciousness.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The highways authority and Surrey Wildlife Trust raised no objection subject to conditions, while the residents association raised ecology and biodiversity concerns.

“County Highway Authority (CHA): The CHA has considered the development and assessed the application of on safety, capacity and policy grounds and has raised no objection subject to conditions and informatives to secure pedestrian visibility zones, electric vehicle charging points, cycle storage, parking, a construction transport management plan, and the securing of the refuse collection point.”

“Surrey Wildlife Trust: No objection raised subject to conditions and informatives.”

Officer report

What residents said

Fifty-eight responses raised concerns including overdevelopment, character, privacy, traffic, parking, trees, wildlife, flooding, noise and construction disturbance.

“Issue Paragraph(s) Overdevelopment Paragraph 6.4-6.10 Alternative location/ proposal preferred Paragraph 6.4-6.10 Out of character with surrounding area Paragraph 6.4-6.10 Poor design Paragraph 6.4-6.10 No need for the development Paragraph 6.1-6.10 Loss of buildings Paragraph 6.4-6.10 Overlooking and loss of privacy Paragraph 6.11-6.15 Overbearing relationship Paragraph 6.11-6.15 Overshadowing Paragraph 6.11-6.15 Inconvenience during construction Paragraph 6.46-6.50…”

“Planning Committee Agenda Item: 9 3 rd June 2026 25/02207/F Harm to wildlife habitat Paragraph 6.32-6.37 Drainage/sewage capacity Paragraph 6.39-6.41 Flooding Paragraph 6.30-6.32 Noise & disturbance Paragraph 6.46-6.50 Loss of private view Paragraph 6.46-6.50 Crime fears Paragraph 6.46-6.50 Health fears Paragraph 6.46-6.50 Harm to Conservation Area Paragraph 6.46-6.50 Harm to Green Belt/ countryside Paragraph 6.46-6.50 No need for the development Paragraph 6.46-6.50 Property…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Visiting members Councillors Cooper and Ashford spoke about public interest, infrastructure, self-build status, ecology, biodiversity net gain and trees.

What members debated

Members debated bin locations, animal access through fencing, screening, badgers, updated ecological evidence, self-build evidence and protected trees.

“Councillor Ashford, a visiting member, stated that the addendum report received that afternoon had not resolved outstanding concerns and, in their view, had instead reinforced them. Three principal areas of concern were identified: wildlife and compliance with wildlife law, biodiversity net gain (BNG), and impacts on protected trees.”

“In respect of biodiversity net gain, it was noted that the officer report identified a net loss but relied upon a claimed self-build exemption. It was highlighted that Surrey County Council Ecology had requested clarification on the development’s self-build status, indicating that this matter was not resolved. Concern was expressed that there was no substantive evidence to support the self-build claim and that reliance on conditions alone would not ensure compliance.”

Minutes