Councillors refused up to 206 homes on the former Moore Place golf course on 13 October, against officers' advice, after three earlier votes failed.

Elmbridge councillors have refused outline permission for up to 206 homes on the former Moore Place Golf Course in Esher. Planning officers had recommended approval.

The decision came late on Tuesday 13 October, after more than two hours on the one application. It took four votes to reach it. This account is taken from the council’s own webcast of the meeting, which runs to about four and a half hours.

The application, 2025/3373, came from Charterhouse Strategic Land and Moore Place Holdings. It proposed up to 206 homes on about 12.5 hectares of Green Belt off Portsmouth Road, half of them affordable. We set out the full scheme in our preview of the meeting.

How the evening went

Officers said the site counted as grey belt under the 2026 national planning rules, which would allow housing on it. Most of the committee did not agree. The votes ran like this:

  • A motion to refuse was moved by Councillor Simon Waugh and seconded by Councillor Richard Williams. It said the scheme would not preserve the setting and special character of Esher as a historic town. The vote was tied, and the chairman, Councillor Barry Cheyne, used his casting vote against it. He said he found it difficult to go against the officers’ report and recommendation.
  • The officers’ recommendation to grant outline permission was then put. It did not pass either.
  • A motion to defer, moved by Councillor Andrew Burley and seconded by Councillor Alistair Mann, would have sent the case back for officers to report on the rest of Green Belt policy. That fell too.
  • The refusal motion came back with four more reasons added. It was carried with eight votes in favour, and the chairman declared the application refused.
Timeline of the four votes on Moore Place, Esher, on 13 October 2026: a motion to refuse lost on the chairman's casting vote; the recommendation to grant not carried; a motion to defer not carried; refusal with four extra legal-agreement reasons carried with eight votes in favour.
The four votes on application 2025/3373, from the council's webcast. Graphic by Elmbridge News.
Share this chartFacebookWhatsAppX

Councillor Cheyne told the meeting it was the first time in 33 years on the Planning Committee that he had met this situation. At one point he said the committee was “running around in circles”.

The reasons for refusal

The main reason, as an officer read it out before the final vote, is that the development:

  • fails to preserve the setting of the historic town of Esher
  • contributes strongly to the Green Belt purpose of protecting that setting, so does not meet the grey belt test
  • causes harm to heritage assets to which substantial weight is given, and the benefits do not substantially outweigh it
  • conflicts with policy DM17 of the council’s Development Management Plan and with the national framework

The four added reasons were taken from the officers’ own report. They cover the lack of a signed legal agreement to secure:

  • the affordable housing and public open space
  • a £14,017.40 fee for monitoring the biodiversity net gain
  • the payment towards protecting the Thames Basin Heaths
  • money for public rights of way and a £5,000 travel plan auditing fee

Officers routinely include reasons like these. They mean that if the developer appeals, it will also have to offer the legal agreement for an inspector to consider.

The formal decision notice had not appeared on the council’s systems when we checked on Friday. The planning register and the committee pages were both unreachable, so the wording above is as read out at the meeting.

Mayfield Road car park: 23 homes approved

Earlier the same evening, councillors approved 2026/0036, 23 homes on Network Rail’s car park off Mayfield Road, Hersham. It sits about six minutes’ walk from Walton-on-Thames station. No affordable housing is included.

A motion to refuse it was moved and lost first. The committee then voted through the officers’ recommendation. The application had been deferred on 15 September because its viability papers were not public.

The committee also granted 2-6 Palace View, Bridge Road, East Molesey, and refused 37 Lovelace Road and 1 Beechwood Close, Long Ditton, by nine votes to seven, against officers’ advice.

What happens next

The developer can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. For a refused planning application the usual deadline is six months from the date of the decision notice.

The officers’ report gave the council’s housing land supply as about one year, against the five years it should have. That shortfall weighs in favour of new housing at any appeal. Officers also pointed to an inspector’s earlier finding on 1-5 Hillside, the land just to the north, that building there caused no “discernible narrowing” of the gap between Esher and Hersham.

Decisions like this one may not reach the committee much longer. National rules on which applications councillors decide start on 31 October, and an officer told the meeting that a deferred case would have been considered under them. We explained the change in how Elmbridge planning decisions change from October.

What it means for you

For now, no homes can be built at Moore Place. If you objected, there is nothing more to do unless the developer appeals.

Watch for an appeal. If one is lodged, the Planning Inspectorate will name the procedure, and we will report it. The webcast stays online, and you can watch the debate from about two hours 15 minutes in. Other decisions are on our Elmbridge planning news page.

Sources