Land east of Mid Street

Consultation boards setting out the proposals are available to view below. After reviewing the information, or attending the presentation, please share your comments using the feedback form at the bottom of this page.

All comments received will be collated and submitted to Tandridge District Council as part of the outline planning application and will be publicly available. In accordance with GDPR requirements, personal details will not be disclosed and are collected solely to allow us to validate responses.

Anonymous submissions cannot be considered. Once the consultation process has concluded and responses have been collated, original comments will be securely destroyed.

Public Consultation Summary Report

1. Event Overview

On 8 April 2026, the project team hosted a virtual public consultation to present early outline proposals for a residential development of up to 90 mixed-tenure homes on land accessed via 131 Mid Street, South Nutfield.

The panel included representatives from the Guinness Partnership (Applicant), ECE Planning (Planning Consultants), and Pitman Tozer (Architects). The purpose of the event was to introduce the landscape-led approach, explain the outline planning process, and most importantly, capture early feedback from local residents to inform the ongoing master planning and technical studies.

The presentation was followed by an open Q&A session, incorporating both verbal contributions and a written chat function.

2. Project Overview Presented

Applicant: The Guinness Partnership (national housing association providing in-perpetuity management of social and affordable homes).

Scale: Approximately 90 homes (mixed market and affordable/social rent).

Approach: Landscape-led, seeking to respect the Nutfield Brook, retain mature trees, enhance biodiversity, and respect existing boundary lines.

Current Status: Conceptual stage (Outline Application focus), with technical surveys currently ongoing.

3. Summary of Main Topics and Themes

The sentiment from the community was overwhelmingly cautious and highly protective of South Nutfield’s current status and infrastructure. Below is a thematic analysis of the community’s primary concerns. The following represents comments raised by members of the public.

A. Village Character and Greenbelt Protection

Residents strongly pushed back against the loss of Greenbelt land, expressing fears that the development would irreversibly alter South Nutfield from a rural village into an urbanised town. Attendees questioned the justification for building on the Greenbelt instead of brownfield or “greybelt” sites.

“The majority of us chose to live here for the open feel of the village, ‘filling in’ this area with housing will completely ruin the feel of south Nutfield.”

“South Nutfield has existed as a village for well over 100 years. Basically, your scheme and other schemes like it will destroy the village. It will no longer be a village. It’ll be a town, it’ll merge into Redhill…”

B. Transport, Traffic, and Connectivity

The project team’s assertion that the site is a “highly sustainable location” was heavily contested. Residents noted that the local train station is a small, unreliable branch line without direct London access, and bus services are poor. Consequently, the village relies heavily on cars.

“Consultation doc implies there are direct trains to London, but you need to be clear that there aren’t any… It isn’t an easy commute into London by train.”

“Traffic in Mid Street is already an absolute nightmare, this will make things absolutely horrendous.”

“We are over-populated with cars/traffic already, with a continuing problem with near misses/traffic around the school… More houses without some thought to traffic calming will lead to more cars, with accidents/deaths.”

C. Flooding, Drainage, and Surface Water

Flooding is a highly sensitive local issue. Residents reported that land near Nutfield Brook and properties at the end of Mid Street already flood during heavy rain. The community is highly sceptical that proposed “attenuation basins” or modern drainage standards will be sufficient to prevent the displacement of water into existing homes.

“Predictions is one thing, come visit my house which backs onto this site and tell me flooding isn’t going to be a problem!”

“Building houses where there is a high level of flood risk will make it difficult for homeowners to afford home insurance or even buy it in the first place.”

D. Overburdened Social Infrastructure

Residents highlighted a severe lack of capacity in local infrastructure. The primary school is vastly oversubscribed, and GP/dentist appointments are difficult to secure. Some residents felt the village cannot support a ‘10–12% population increase’. A resident suggested a compromise: reducing home numbers to build new community assets instead.

“The local school currently has 2.2 applicants per 1 space, how will the addition of new homes and families support the school here? Will it not increase pressure rather than alleviate?”

“Rather than putting 90 houses there, have we considered a more balanced approach, say 50 houses and another primary school perhaps, or a branch doctors surgery…?”

E. Cumulative Impact and Site Linkages

There is high anxiety regarding the cumulative impact of multiple local developments (e.g., Nutfield Green Park, Thepps Close/Blackthorn). Rumours that the Guinness site will connect to the adjacent Blackthorn development to create a through-road/rat-run caused significant distress in the chat, though the Guinness team clarified they do not own that land and a link road is not currently in their proposals.

“Disgusted at the prospect of you joining up the Thepps Close proposed development with this proposed development. Living in a cul-de-sac currently that will then become a rat run!”

F. Chat Log Record & Analysis

To ensure a robust public record, all questions and comments submitted via the digital chat function have been documented below. These will form the basis of a future project FAQ.

Data & Need Justification:

“Where do you get this data? It doesn’t seem to ring true. We have a large number of families and an over subscribed primary school.”

“How many houses are you proposing? Sorry if I missed this earlier in the presentation.”

Flooding & Environment:

“What are you using to determine that it’s at low risk of flooding?”

“What are your plans to ensure that there isn’t further flooding. The two houses near the brook have flooded and with more concrete on the ground there is likely to be more flooding?”

“How have you considered the vast range of wildlife you would displace by filling this area with housing?”

“Can the green space with trees be placed at the rear of the existing Nutfield properties, so we can maintain some green view, instead of a back of house.”

Traffic & Logistics:

“How are you accessing off of mid street – and how do you get to Mid Street in the first place? If you come from the M25, are you suggesting that you send large HGV/trucks through the centre of the village… and directly past the front of the primary school – which is dangerous?”

Cumulative Impact / Thepps Close Link:

“Given that you are proposing increasing the population of the village by over 10%, what plans do you already have in place to improve the village amenities and ensure safety for the new residents, even on the roads?”

“One of you said you were looking at joining the new development with the Thepps Close development to add a second access road!” (Note: Guinness representative clarified in the chat that they do not own or control the adjacent site and are not currently considering a road link).

4. Next Steps & Recommendations for the Project Team:

Parish Council Meeting: The project team has committed to attend the upcoming Parish Council meeting on 13 May 2026 to speak with residents and councillors in person.

In-Person Site Walk: A resident requested an in-person, on-site meeting to discuss the plans physically. The team should explore the feasibility of this to build trust. – Discussed and cautious about this for H&S reasons.

FAQ Document: Produce an FAQ document specifically addressing the primary themes identified above (Train/Bus viability, Flooding reassurances, School capacity, and the Blackthorn/Thepps Close road link rumour).

Communication Protocol: Several residents noted emails to the consultation address went unanswered over the Easter bank holiday, which hindered digital access to the meeting. The team must ensure the inbox is monitored and responses are swift to maintain community goodwill.

South Nutfield FAQs

1. Principle of Development & Greenbelt

Why are you proposing to build on Greenbelt land rather than brownfield sites

We fully recognise that the Greenbelt is highly valued by the community. However, across the Southeast, there is a severe housing crisis and simply not enough available brownfield land to meet these housing needs. Brownfield sites also frequently face competing pressures for other forms of development, such as commercial or industrial use. The government requires local authorities to meet housing targets, and in areas like Tandridge where the housing land supply is critically low (currently around 1.4 years against a 5-year target), sustainably located sites on the edge of existing settlements have to be considered. Any planning application will require the Council to weigh the loss of Greenbelt against the provision of much-needed housing and the sustainability of the location, whilst also determining if the site constitutes Greybelt land.

There are existing structures that have last been used stables, as well as some areas of hard standing and as such part of the site constitutes brown field or previously developed land.

How many homes are you proposing, and what will the density be?

While the exact numbers are still being determined as we refine the masterplan, we are currently looking at a proposal of approximately 90 homes. The density is being carefully designed to reflect the existing character of South Nutfield. The highest density could be situated toward the centre and eastern side of the site, while the density would decrease towards the edges, the brook, and the boundaries with existing homes. However, this is an Outline Application, and such details would be considered at the Reserved Matters stage.

Where did you get your demographic data? (Residents feel the desk-based data does not reflect the reality of the village).

Our initial demographic figures were drawn from Office of National Statistics (ONS) dataset for the local postcode, alongside standard desk-based studies. We acknowledge that ONS data can sometimes lag behind the current reality on the ground. This is exactly why we are consulting with residents early in the process; to gather your lived experiences and understand the true local context.

What happens to the site if planning permission is refused?

If planning permission is ultimately refused, the Guinness Partnership would likely retain ownership of the site and continue to manage and maintain it as it currently is. We would hold the land with the potential to explore alternative uses or wait to see if local infrastructure and planning policies change in the future.

What makes the Guinness Partnership different from a standard private housing developer?

Unlike many private developers who build homes to sell and then leave the area, Guinness is a national housing association that manages properties in perpetuity (forever). We already own and manage homes in Thepps Close. We do not use “pattern book” standard house types; instead, we take a landscape-led approach tailored to the local area. Because our residents will live here long-term, we are heavily invested in ensuring the properties, green spaces, and social infrastructure are well-maintained and integrated into the community.

2. Traffic, Transport, & Access

How can you classify this site as a “highly sustainable location” when some residents stated that, ‘the train station is a branch line with no direct trains to London, and bus services are poor?’

In planning terms, a location is generally considered “sustainable” if it is within a short walking distance of day-to-day facilities. Because the site connects directly to the established pedestrian route on Mid Street, allowing realistic walking access to the village centre, primary school, and train station, it fits this definition in our opinion. However, we heard your strong feedback regarding the unreliability of the branch line and local bus services, and we have fed this back to our transport consultant who will produce a transport assessment which will consider this in more detail.

How will the village roads, particularly Mid Street, cope with the traffic generated by approximately 90 additional households?

This is an Outline Planning application, which means the exact details are still being worked out. However, we are required to undertake comprehensive highway modelling. If this modelling shows that key local junctions or Mid Street cannot safely operate with the additional traffic, we will be required by the local highways authority to identify and potentially fund road and junction improvements to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

How will construction traffic (including HGVs) safely access the site via Mid Street without causing danger, particularly around the primary school?

Should the project receive planning permission, the Council will require a strict Construction Management Plan (CMP) before any work begins. This document controls how and when construction vehicles can access the site. It could include bans on HGVs moving through the village during school drop-off and pick-up times to ensure pedestrian safety.

Will there be any traffic calming measures or infrastructure investments included in the plans?

This will be determined through the pre-application process with Surrey County Council and/or through the determination of the planning application.

3. Flooding & Drainage

Properties backing onto the brook and at the end of Mid Street already experience severe flooding. How are you determining that this site is at “low risk”?

Our baseline flood risk assessment comes from the Environment Agency’s national dataset, which factors in future climate change. While the northern edge of the site directly adjacent to Nutfield Brook is in a flood risk zone, the topography slopes upward. The areas where the homes are proposed sit higher up the slope, in areas classified as low flood risk. Development would be focussed to areas at low risk of flooding. We are required through planning policy to direct development to such areas at low risk of flooding. Any future construction would also contain water attenuation interventions to ensure that flows to the brook mimic greenfield conditions.

How will you guarantee that adding hardstanding (concrete/tarmac) won’t push surface water into existing homes and worsen current flooding?

Drainage standards are incredibly strict. New development must ensure that water run-off is no worse than the existing “greenfield” (natural) run-off rate, factoring in climate change projections. We will utilize Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). This includes “per-plot” capture (such as rain gardens to slow water flow), swales, and large attenuation basins (ponds). These basins capture water during heavy storms and slowly release it back into the brook at a controlled, natural rate, preventing surges.

If building here increases local flood risk, who will be responsible, and how will residents be able to insure their homes?

Building will not be approved if in the opinion of the flood experts there is any risk of increasing local flood risk. Insurance is unlikely to be affected by the development.

4. Social Infrastructure & Village Amenities

The local primary school is currently oversubscribed (reporting 2.2 applicants for every 1 space). How will this development support the school rather than breaking it?

We completely understand this concern. As part of the planning process, the local authority will assess the impact on local schools. If the school cannot accommodate new children, it may be necessary to review catchment areas or consider expanding existing facilities. If a development is approved, the developer is required to pay financial contributions (such as the Community Infrastructure Levy or Section 106 payments) which the local authority uses specifically to fund local infrastructure upgrades like school expansions.

What specific plans do you have in place to improve village amenities to cope with a 10%+ increase in the local population?

As in the answer above, as part of the planning proses, the local authority will assess the impact of the development and may require the developer to pay a financial contribution to improve local services.

Have you considered reducing the number of homes to make space for new community infrastructure, such as a doctor’s branch surgery?

Because we are at the initial master planning stage, nothing is set in stone. We welcome ideas on how the site could deliver a more balanced approach that directly benefits the existing South Nutfield community, and we will share this specific suggestion with our design team.

5. Environment & Landscape

How will you protect the vast range of wildlife that currently use this site?

Our approach is “landscape-led.” We have commissioned extensive ecological and, which are ongoing. Key principles established already include protecting the Nutfield Brook corridor, retaining the chain of mature trees running north-to-south, and preserving trees along the southern boundary. The outline planning permission would fix these ecological protections in place to ensure biodiversity is enhanced rather than destroyed.

If rare or protected species are found, all works would need to accommodate them, for example by carrying out works in the correct season to avoid harm, such as no tree cutting in bird nesting season.

Can the green spaces and retained trees be placed at the boundary of existing Nutfield properties to maintain a green view, rather than new houses backing directly onto existing ones?

Currently, our strategic layout proposes placing the back gardens of the new homes against the back gardens of the existing homes on the western and southern boundaries. In planning and urban design, this is generally the preferred approach as it protects the privacy and security of existing residents better than placing public open space directly against private garden fences. However, we are actively retaining existing trees along these boundaries to soften the visual impact, and are considering options to enhance the planting of trees and hedges on our boundaries for both ecological and amenity reasons.

6. Cumulative Impact & Neighbouring Developments

Are you planning to link your access road with the neighbouring Blackthorn/Thepps Close development to create a through-road

No. We want to be absolutely clear: joining our proposed road to the Thepps Close/Blackthorn development is not a proposal we are currently considering. Furthermore, Guinness does not own or control the land where the Blackthorn development is planned, nor do we have any agreements with them to link the sites. Our proposed access is solely via Mid Street. However, we would be open to discussing if pedestrian / cycle access would benefit all residents – in our view it would be beneficial.

This position will also depend on whether the highways authority require an emergency access connection. In this case we would explore appropriate infrastructure.

How are you taking into account the cumulative impact of other planning applications currently pending in South Nutfield (e.g., Nutfield Green Park, Thepps Close, Eugene Band Centre)?

We are actively reviewing the planning history of the surrounding area, including the Nutfield Green Park, Thepps Close, and other local applications. While we plan for our specific site, the ultimate responsibility for assessing cumulative impact lies with Tandridge District Council. During the planning process, the Council will assess how all approved and pending applications collectively impact the village’s highways, schools, and medical facilities before making a determination.