Detached dwelling at Dukes Hill, Woldingham

What was proposed

The application sought changes to approved plans and several conditions for a previously approved detached dwelling with parking and landscaping.

“2025/1039 Location: Dukes Hill, Woldingham, CR3 7HB Proposal: Variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) condition 3 (surface water drainage works) condition 4 (hard and soft landscaping) condition 5 (materials) condition 6 (ground levels) and condition 7 (carbon emissions) of planning permission 2021/1500 dated 20.06.2022 (Demolition of existing outbuildings and erection of detached dwelling with associated parking and landscaping) To vary the plans and submit information…”

“The application is made under S73 of the Planning Act for the material change to the already approved application under planning reference 2021/1500. This application seeks to vary Condition 2 (approved plans), condition 3 (surface water drainage works), condition 4 (hard and soft landscaping), condition 5 (materials), condition 6 (ground levels) and condition 7 (carbon emissions) of planning permission 2021/1500 dated 20.06.2022 (Demolition of existing outbuildings and…”

Officer report

The site

The site was former cottage and outbuilding grounds in the Green Belt, with private-road access, trees, hedges, walls and open fields nearby.

“The application site was previously the grounds of Covertside, which was a semi-detached dwelling accessed off Lunghurst Road, Woldingham. The site lies in the Green Belt and comprises Orchids Cottage - the former gardener’s cottage and outbuildings used as storage for the main dwelling, which was originally Duke’s Edge, now Duke’s Edge and Covertside.”

“The site has a gated access on to the private road known as Duke’s Hill. The structures are bounded by post and rail fencing, hedges, trees and substantial…”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

The original dwelling permission was granted, while later condition details included approvals, a withdrawal and a refusal.

“2021/1500/Cond3 - Details pursuant to the discharge of condition 3 (Surface Water Drainage), condition 4 (Hard and Soft Landscaping), Condition 5 (materials), Condition 6 (ground levels) and condition 7 (Carbon Emissions) of planning permission ref:2021/1500 dated 20th June 2022 (Demolition of existing outbuildings and erection of detached dwelling with associated parking and landscaping. (Amended plans). Refused 15/10/2025”

“2021/1500/Cond1 - Details pursuant to the discharge of Condition 5 (Materials), Condition 6 (Ground levels), Condition 10 (Construction Transport Management Plan) and Condition 17 (Ecology Survey) of planning permission ref: 2021/1500 dated 20th June 2022 (Demolition of existing outbuildings and erection of detached dwelling with associated parking and landscaping. (Amended plans)). Approval of conditions details 27/03/2023”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The highway authority raised no control over the private access, while the parish council and third parties objected on Green Belt, character, trees, overlooking and amenity grounds.

“County Highway Authority – The County Highway Authority have stated that the access road to the site is in private ownership and therefore would not have any control over it.”

“Impact on the Green Belt for the larger dwelling. • Not a S73 application. • Boundary trees should be retained in terms of character or area • Impact on neighbouring occupiers through overlooking.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector submitted a video, the parish council spoke against the application, and the applicant’s representative spoke in support.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed Green Belt land, the degree of harm and land-level changes associated with the new subterrain level.

“There was conversation around the use of Green Belt land, whether there would be harm and to what level. The changes that would occur to the land level when the new subterrain level was added were also discussed.”

Minutes

The vote

Members approved motions proposing refusal after they were proposed and seconded.

“Councillor Sherry proposed that the committee consider the following motions for refusal:”

“The motions were seconded by Councillor Sue Farr. Upon being put to the vote, the motions were approved.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Planning permission was refused because the committee found substantial Green Belt harm and unacceptable overlooking causing significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity.

“1) The development, by reason of its increased size, scale, external footprint, volume, height, massing, bulk, and greater visual prominence, would result in substantial spatial and visual harm to the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt.”

“2) The development, by reason of its increased height, higher occupied floor levels and higher fenestration would create an intrusive presence and result in unacceptable overlooking of the neighbouring dwelling known as Poplars, including direct overlooking of its principal bedroom and a materially greater degree of overlooking of its private rear garden.”

Minutes