- Decision
- dismissed, 21 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Timothy King
- Authority
- Reigate and Banstead (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6003001
- Application reference
- 25/01468/F
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of curtilage-listed stables (in dwelling use) and erection of a relocated single-storey 3-bed "replacement" dwelling in an open field
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- green belt, open countryside, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(b), GB6(2), HE4, HE6
- Development plan policies
- Reigate & Banstead DMP 2019 NHE5, DES1, NHE9, Core Strategy 2014
- Main issues
- grey belt; replacement building; openness; character; heritage; VSC balance
Summary
Demolition of a curtilage-listed stables building (used as a dwelling) and a new single-storey dwelling in an adjoining open field in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The land was grey belt, but GB7(1)(g) failed for want of evidenced unmet need and a sustainable location. It was not a "replacement" under GB7(1)(b) because it moved to a different site. Openness, character and heritage harms were unjustified, and no VSC was shown. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Application submitted under the Dec 2024 Framework, but the inspector gave "full regard … to the latest government guidance" (DL ¶2–3).
- Grey belt: PASS. The field "is not PDL. However, it does not perform strongly on any of the above points, and I consider that the land meets the grey belt classification test" (DL ¶5).
- GB7(1)(g)(ii)–(iii): FAIL. "The single dwelling … although it is not in a sustainable location, would be unlikely to generate a significant amount of movement … However … I have not been provided with any details to illustrate that there is an evidenced unmet need for additional housing in this area" (DL ¶7).
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. The baseline is "what is physically there, not what could theoretically be built under an unimplemented planning permission" (Athlone House), though that may matter as fallback at the VSC stage (DL ¶19). "relocating it a significant distance away … considerably lessens the 'replacement' exception" (DL ¶20).
- Openness. "moving the building into an open field will almost certainly trigger the requirements to demonstrate very special circumstances" (DL ¶10).
- Heritage: FAIL under HE4, HE5 and HE6, with no clear and convincing justification for losing the curtilage-listed stables (DL ¶30, ¶36).
Planning balance
GB6(2) VSC. Harm on every main issue. The expired 2013 permission was "unrealistic" to rely on, and the 2024 householder fallback was "of limited value" (DL ¶38, ¶40). VSC not demonstrated (DL ¶41).
What made the difference
Relocating the "replacement" into an open field destroyed the GB7(1)(b) argument, and the appellant produced no unmet-need evidence for (g)(ii). Heritage failings (loss of a curtilage-listed building with a thin statement) would have sunk it anyway.
Transferable points
- Limb (ii) is not automatically presumed. Where the appellant supplies no evidence of the housing shortfall, the inspector may find no "evidenced unmet need" (DL ¶7). Contrast the cases where a shortfall is common ground (e.g. PINS-6009966).
- A single dwelling may not generate "significant movement" and yet still not be in a sustainable location for (g)(iii) (DL ¶7).
- A GB7(1)(b) replacement moved a significant distance, even within the same planning unit, is not a replacement (DL ¶20).
- The replacement baseline is the existing physical building. Unimplemented permissions count only as fallback at the VSC stage (DL ¶19).
- Inspectors will raise grey belt themselves where the parties haven't (DL ¶2, ¶5).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AnnexB:grey-belt | pass | field beyond farmhouse curtilage is not PDL but does not perform strongly on (a), (b), (d); grey belt raised by the inspector, not the parties (DL 2, 5) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | fail | no details given of an evidenced unmet need for housing in the area (DL 7-8) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | fail | "not in a sustainable location", though one dwelling would not generate significant movement (DL 7) | |
| GB7(1)(b) | fail | relocated into an open field outside curtilage a significant distance away, so not a replacement; baseline is the physical building, not an unimplemented extension permission (Athlone House) (DL 13-21) | |
| GB6(2) | fail | substantial | inappropriate; materially greater effect on openness, visual and spatial (DL 10, 21, 41) |
| HE4 | fail | no clear and convincing justification for loss of Victorian curtilage-listed stables; heritage statement inadequate (DL 26-30) | |
| HE5 | fail | inadequate assessment of significance and drawings (DL 27-28, 34) | |
| HE6 | harm | substantial | harm to setting of 14th/15th C Grade II farmhouse; benefits private not public (DL 33-36) |
| DP3 | harm | expansive single-storey footprint obtrusive; conflict with DMP DES1 (DL 22-25) |
Key facts
- Grade II 14th/15th C timber-framed farmhouse; Victorian stables curtilage listed and in dwelling use
- Proposed dwelling sited in an open field across the driveway, outside the farmhouse's residential curtilage
- Appellant relied on an expired 2013 permission and an unimplemented 2024 householder permission to inflate the baseline
- Neither party raised grey belt; inspector raised it
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.