Five new dwellings at Sandelands, Woodland Avenue, Cranleigh

What was proposed

The application sought five dwellings and associated work after demolishing the existing dwelling.

“WA/2024/01889 – Erection of 5 dwellings and associated work following demolition of the existing dwelling. at SANDELANDS WOODLAND AVENUE CRANLEIGH GU6 7HU”

“The application seeks permission for: - Erection of 5 dwellings and associated work following demolition of the existing dwelling.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

Sandelands was a large two-storey dwelling on a spacious plot beside Littlemead Brook, with surrounding detached houses, verges and protected trees.

“Sandelands is a large, two-storey dwelling with accommodation within a mansard roof, situated on a spacious verdant plot to the north-east of Woodland Avenue, adjacent to Ewhurst Road in the developed settlement of Cranleigh. The area is residential in character with relatively flat site levels. The surrounding character is individual detached houses set in large garden plots from 1930s – 1970s with grass verges along Woodlands Avenue.”

“Littlemead Brook runs along the northern and western boundary of the site with several TPOs flanking the east, west and north of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions covered a car and caravan port, a lounge extension, and additional bedrooms and a bathroom in the mansard roof.

“Reference Proposal Decision WA/1981/1663 Construction of car and caravan port GRANTED (30/11/1981) WA/1978/1212 Alterations and single storey extension to lounge GRANTED (15/09/1978) HM/R16973 Addition - three bedrooms and bathroom in existing mansard roof GRANTED (19/03/1968)”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the site was in Cranleigh, the homes would contribute to housing supply, and the proposal was considered acceptable against relevant planning matters.

“Comments have been made that Item 4.6 of the Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan indicates no further housing in the area is needed and that the proposal does not provide for affordable housing. There is no policy requirement for affordable housing on this site as detailed below. Furthermore, the Housing Land Supply position is measured across the Waverley Local Plan area and not the Neighbourhood Plan area.”

“The Council’s current annual housing requirement is 1,481 dwellings based on the standard method. Applying the 5% buffer to the housing requirement for the five year period of 1 April 2024 – 31 March 2029 increases the annual housing requirement to 1,555 dwellings. At 1 April 2024 there were 1,998 dwellings that the Council considered to be deliverable in the five year period, equating to a 1.28 year housing land supply.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

Highways, flood authorities, the Environment Agency, Natural England and Surrey Wildlife Trust raised no objection subject to conditions, while trees and the parish council objected.

“Consultees Comments Surrey Highways Authority No objection (subject to conditions) (13/11/2024) Further response provided to neighbour objection letters. (10/12/2024) Lead Local Flood Authority No objection (subject to condition) (updated response dated 31/03/2025) Environment Agency No objection (subject to condition) (updated response dated 04/06/2025) Surrey Wildlife Trust - Based upon the completion of our site visit and the information that we have available, SWT have…”

Officer report

What local people said

Thirty-seven letters objected on grounds including overdevelopment, character, privacy, flooding, trees, biodiversity, access, parking and construction impacts; one letter supported the design.

“- Level of development is inconsistent with density along Woodland Avenue. - Backland development at odds with character of the avenue. - Overdevelopment of the site. - Modern design and layout does not accord with street scene. - Would lead to precedent of sub-division of Woodland Avenue. - Misleading design and access statement. - Overshadowing and overbearing impact on neighbouring property. - Loss of privacy and light to neighbouring properties.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, a supporter and a town councillor made representations under the public speaking scheme.

The committee vote

The committee voted in favour of the officers’ recommendation, with 10 votes for, one against and no abstentions.

“Following the debate, the Committee voted in favour of the officers’ recommendation to Grant permission 10 in favour, one against and no abstentions Decision…”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted subject to conditions 1 to 18 and informatives 1 to 7.

“Subject to conditions 1-18 and informatives 1-7, permission is GRANTED”

Minutes