14-home housing scheme at Land Coordinates, Hedgehog Lane

What was proposed

An outline scheme proposed 14 homes, including eight affordable dwellings and six detached self-build or custom-build homes, with access, roads and landscaping.

“WA/2025/01986 – Outline application with all matters reserved except for access for the phased development of the site to provide 14 residential dwellings comprising 8 affordable dwellings and 6 detached self / custom build homes, together with an internal access road, amenity space and landscaping. at LAND COORDINATES 489444 132452 HEDGEHOG LANE HASLEMERE”

“Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of 14 dwellings with associated internal access road, amenity space and landscaping. 8 (57%) of the total number of homes provided would be affordable (all 1 bed, 2 person units) and 6 would comprise self-build or custom build plots (two x 4 bed houses and four x 5 bed houses) to be delivered as discounted price affordable serviced homes.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a sloping triangular field with a small stable, trees and hedges, forming part of the Longdene estate south of Haslemere.

“The application site is a sloping, triangular-shaped open field with a small stable building to the west side of Hedgehog Lane and to the south of Haslemere, forming part of the Longdene estate. It is surrounded by a few scattered residential buildings.”

“The application site forms part of the Longdene estate comprising Longdene House, The Lodge with the four approved dwellings to the rear, the recently permitted new dwelling named Pool House given its location on a former swimming pool and the newly constructed Longdene Hall (which is outside the applicant’s ownership) with associated outbuildings and gardens. These are located to the south / southwest of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for housing on the site were withdrawn, declined, refused or dismissed on appeal.

“WA/2018/0151: Hybrid Planning Application;- Change of Use, extension and alterations to office building to provide 1 dwelling together with the erection of a detached garage; outline application, with access and landscaping to be determined, for the erection of up to 28 dwellings following demolition of 2 dwellings, glasshouses and outbuildings (as amplified by Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy Assessment received 28/03/2018, additional ecology information received 15/05/2018…”

“WA/2016/1226: Hybrid Planning Application;- Change of Use, extension and alterations to office building to provide 1 dwelling together with the erection of a detached garage; outline application, with access and landscaping to be determined, for the erection of up to 29 dwellings following demolition of 2 dwellings, glasshouses and outbuildings; alternative proposal, Scheme B. Refused 20/09/2016 and appeal dismissed 10/01/2019”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found moderate harm to the National Landscape and major harm to the site’s landscape character, which outweighed the housing and biodiversity benefits.

“The application would provide a minor, albeit important contribution to housing supply, which is given significant weight, although the presumption on favour of sustainable development, or the “tilted balance”, does not apply because the proposal has a moderate (adverse) impact on the National Landscape thereby failing to conserve or enhance its landscape and scenic beauty, which is a strong reason for refusal.”

“The proposal, by way of introducing built form on the site, would cause a major (adverse) effect on its landscape character and a moderate (adverse) on the Surrey Hills National Landscape and Area of Great Landscape Value.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Most consultees raised no objection or supported conditions, while Surrey Wildlife Trust objected and requested an updated biodiversity assessment.

“Recommend conditions and a legal obligation…”

“An updated Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment taking site degradation into consideration is required.”

Officer report

What people said

Objectors raised landscape, traffic, access, water, wildlife and infrastructure concerns, while supporters highlighted affordable housing, self-build plots and the site’s location.

“It is questionable whether any of the proposed housing would truly be affordable. This is correct in respect of the self / custom build dwellings, but social rent is the most affordable tenure of all. This application because seeks to introduce an urban housing development on an environmentally and historically rich undeveloped greenfield site, urbanising this area.”

“The doubts over whether the six self-build properties can be classed as affordable housing is in some ways a moot point given the threshold percentage is already met. The proposal would provide more than 30% affordable housing, but additional weight can be given to affordable housing above the policy requirement.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, two supporters, a town councillor and two ward councillors addressed the committee.

The vote and decision

The committee voted eight to two to refuse permission, with no abstentions, following the officers’ recommendation.

“Following the debate, the Committee voted in favour of the officers’ recommendation to refuse permission 8 in favour, 2 against and no abstentions.”

“That permission be REFUSED as per the officer recommendation.”

Minutes