Decision details

23/P/01085 - 80 The Mount, Guildford, GU2 4JB

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No


Councillor Howard Smith left the meeting for the duration of the consideration of this application owing to the non-pecuniary interest he declared.


The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a detached two-storey dwelling following demolition of the existing dwelling and widening of the existing access.


Prior to the consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):


·        Reverend Peter Levell (to object);

·        Mr Paul Banwell (to object) and;

·        Mr Philip Andrews (Agent) (in support)


The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Sakina Khanbhai.  The Committee noted that the application site was located in the urban area and situated towards the upper end of The Mount.  The existing dwelling was located on the northern side of the road which was set back and positioned on elevated land from the street level.  The plot was much wider than the neighbouring residential plot.  The surrounding area was comprised of a mix of dwelling styles.  The proposal was 14.8 metres wide and 10 metres deep with a height of 7.32 metres. 


The design proposed had been revised from an earlier withdrawn scheme with a first-floor layout so that the bathrooms were located to the rear of the dwelling with obscure glazing.  The dwelling would also be narrower than the existing dwelling with generous separation distances to neighbouring side boundaries. 


The proposed dwelling would be slightly deeper than the existing by 2.3 metres and narrower.  The existing access would also be widened, and sufficient parking spaces provided for two vehicles within the existing parking area to the front of the dwelling.  


The proposal was for a contemporary design with a simplified gable front which previously included a large amount of glazing to the rear of the property that was now obscure glazed.  The height of the proposed dwelling was also broadly in line with the existing. 


The application was therefore recommended for approval with the proposed conditions as outlined in the report and updated conditions in the supplementary late sheets.      

The Committee discussed the application and noted that the proposed huf house was not out of character with the existing neighbouring properties given there was no uniformity in the overall design employed in the neighbourhood. In addition, there was already a huf house located further up the road which fitted in well.  Concerns raised regarding overlooking at the back of the property would be successfully overcome via the proposed obscured glass.  In relation to concerns regarding an increase in on-road parking, the property did have a forecourt and so provision was made already.  If the residents did wish to park their cars on-road they would have to apply to the Surrey Highway Authority. With regard to concerns raised regarding the development representing a form of over-development, the Committee noted that the footprint of the proposal was largely similar to the existing property.  Whilst it was deeper, it would not be seen from the road or from the rear.  The proposed roof line would be higher than the existing property but was largely the same as the property to the left.  The Committee also commended the eco-design methods incorporated which included triple glazing, water efficiency measures and solar panels. 


The Committee noted further comments in support of the application that Guildford did not have a predominant architectural style.  The fact that the huf design was different to conventional houses did not mean that it was harmful. 


The Committee noted comments that the proposal did not comply with Policy D1 of the Local Plan Strategy and Sites, as far as there was a distinctive local character.  The design also failed to comply with policies D4 and D5 of the Local Plan, development management policies which required any building to enhance its surroundings, which it was felt this proposal did not.  The development was also overbearing and dominant in the street scene.










A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was carried.









Lizzie Griffiths





Richard Mills





Dominique Williams





Maddy Redpath





Joanne Shaw





Patrick Oven





Vanessa King





Sue Wyeth-Price





Cait Taylor





Yves de Contades





James Jones





Stephen Hives





David Bilbé





Bob Hughes










In conclusion, having taken consideration of the representations received in relation to the application, the Committee


RESOLVED to approve application 23/P/01085 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report and additional conditions as detailed below:


1) The development should be carried out in accordance with the submitted Preliminary Ecological Assessment and Biodiversity Net Gain report prepared by Ecology & Habitat Management Ltd and the recommendations set out within Table 6 and Section 6.3 of this document.


Reason: To mitigate against the loss of existing biodiversity and nature habitats.


2) No development shall take place until a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.


The approved details should include measures to enhance the nature conservation interest of the site.


Reason: To increase the biodiversity of the site and mitigate any impact from the development.


3) Before any other works in association with restoration of the land are commenced, the Cotoneaster present on the site as stated in the Preliminary Ecological Assessment and Biodiversity Net Gain report which is listed as an invasive species under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside act 1991, shall be eradicated using qualified and experienced contractors and disposed of in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act (Duty of Care regulations 1991 and a verification report shall be submitted to and approved in writing prior to the commencement of the above ground works.


Reason: To ensure the cotoneaster is eradicated in the interests of the natural habitat of the area, to prevent the spread of cotoneaster in the wider area and in the interests of residential amenities, in compliance with good practice.





1. The applicant should take action to ensure that development activities such as demolition and vegetation or site clearance are timed to avoid the bird nesting season of early March to August inclusive.


2. The applicant is advised that the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal also notes that there are Cheryl Laurel and Buddleia are present on site and although not listed as an invasive species in Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 these are non-native invasive plants and should be eradicated from the site by a suitable qualified professional.




Report author: Sakina Khanbhai

Publication date: 14/02/2024

Date of decision: 31/01/2024

Decided at meeting: 31/01/2024 - Planning Committee

Accompanying Documents: