Four homes replacing pub at Brickmakers Arms, Tandridge, Oxted

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the public house and building four homes, with a new access, parking and landscaping.

“Application: 2025/342 Location: Brickmakers Arms, Tandridge Lane, Tandridge, Oxted, Surrey, RH8 9NS Proposal: Demolition of the existing public house (Sui Generis) and erection of 2x three-bedroom and 2x four-bedroom dwellings (Use Class C3) forming access off Tandridge Lane, with associated parking and hard and soft landscaping. Ward: Lingfield, Crowhurst & Tandridge…”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site was a derelict fire-damaged public house and car park outside settlement areas, in the Green Belt, beside roads, housing, a railway and a footpath.

“The application site comprises a derelict (fire damaged) public house and associated car park located outside all settlement areas and within the Green Belt. The land lies to the west of Tandridge Lane at the junction with Crowhurst Lane. To the north, about 15 metres from the site, is a viaduct carrying the railway line, and, immediately adjacent to the northern boundary is a public footpath (246). Dwellings lie to the east and south of the site with a paddock located to…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the location was unsustainable and the information did not demonstrate safe access onto the public highway.

“In Green Belt terms, although there is some harm identified, it would not be substantial for the purposes of the assessment. The loss of the heritage asset would be unfortunate but, when weighed against the benefit of an additional three dwellings, it is considered acceptable subject to conditions. There are no objections in terms of character and appearance, neighbour amenity, drainage, archaeology, renewables, biodiversity, trees and landscaping.”

“However, in terms of locational sustainability the development proposal would be unacceptable given the distance from local amenities. Furthermore, the information provided has failed to demonstrate that the proposals would result in safe access onto the public highway. For these reasons the recommendation is for refusal.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The highways authority recommended refusal on sustainability and highway safety grounds, while other consultees raised conditions or no objection.

“The proposed development has been considered by THE COUNTY HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (CHA) who has assessed the application on safety, capacity and policy grounds and recommends the proposal be refused on highway safety and sustainability grounds.”

“Unacceptable density of development • Retaining the pub as it is should also be considered • While moving the car park slightly is an improvement, it is still not an ideal solution. • Amenities and highways are other important factors. • Planning condition to manage surface water run-off is noted…”

Officer report

What people said

Twenty-eight comments objected to issues including parking, overdevelopment, drainage, trees, Green Belt impact, heritage, traffic, the footpath and community loss; two supported the application.

“Insufficient parking • Over-development – excessive density • Inadequate sewerage and drainage • Building near mature trees could render them unstable • Mature trees will need maintenance • Adverse impact on the Green Belt • Unsustainable location • Heritage issues • When the transformer on the neighbouring land requires work, the temporary generator is installed in the car park.”

Officer report

Who spoke

[name withheld] spoke in favour of the application on behalf of the applicant.

What members debated

Councillor Lockwood proposed an additional refusal reason concerning overdevelopment, density, design, parking, highway safety and the rural setting.

“Councillor Lockwood proposed that the committee consider the following additional motion for refusal:”

“The proposal is cramped and overdeveloped in relation to the overall plot size, making it out of character with the densities of nearby rural housing and inappropriate for the location. It is therefore unacceptable intensification of built form on the site in terms of the size, bulk and massing, and for the size and number of the houses, with the larger having a “bonus” room, does not provide sufficient on-site parking, where there is no local capacity for parking to be…”

Minutes

The committee vote

The additional refusal motion was seconded by Councillor Steeds and approved by the committee.

“The motion was seconded by Councillor Steeds. Upon being put to the vote the additional motion was approved.”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning permission was refused with the additional reason for refusal.

“R E S O L V E D - that planning permission be refused with the additional reason for refusal.”

Minutes