Land south of Warren Lane, Hurst Green

Decision

dismissed, 17 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Jennifer Wallace

Authority

Tandridge (South East)

Appeal reference

6004144

Application reference

2025/613

Procedure

hearing

Development

Outline for up to 132 dwellings (50% affordable), open space, access from Holland Road

Homes

132

Site context

green belt, settlement edge, listed building setting, agricultural land BMV

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt accepted)

Housing land supply

2 years

Housing Delivery Test

38%

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

P3, P4(2), S5(1)(j), S3, GB7(1)(g), GB8

Development plan policies

Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 Detailed Policies 2014 DP10, DP13, DP20

Main issues

odour; grey belt; sustainable location; Golden Rules; heritage; S5 balance

Summary

132 homes (50% affordable) on a contained field at the edge of Hurst Green/Oxted, decided after a two-day hearing. The inspector found the site was grey belt and passed all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, including sustainable location and the Golden Rules, so the scheme was not inappropriate. The station route GB7(1)(h) failed on walking distance. The appeal was still dismissed, on odour from the adjoining wastewater works, which arose late through a Southern Water objection. Odour harm "substantially outweighed" the benefits under S5(1)(j). A separate costs decision (costs PDF, 21 Sep 2026) awarded Wates full costs against Tandridge for unreasonable grey belt, sustainability and heritage reasons.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Views were sought on the August 2026 Framework and 2025 HDT (DL ¶5).
• Grey belt: ACCEPTED. On purpose (a): "The appeal site has well defined boundaries. It is effectively enclosed by development to the north, west and east" (DL ¶20). "While landscaped boundaries can be removed, this is also true of many forms of development … That this use may be not inappropriate in the Green Belt, or that it does not have the robustness of a physical building do not alter the fact that the landscaped boundary and sports facility would serve to restrict development" (DL ¶21). "Having regard to the advice in Annex E of the Framework, the appeal site clearly makes a moderate contribution towards purpose A. The precise layout of the proposed development is not necessary to allow this assessment to be made" (DL ¶22). There was no contribution to (b) or (d) (DL ¶23-24).
• GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS. No 5YHLS and HDT failure (DL ¶27).
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS. "There is no requirement that every service for day-to-day living should be within walking distance of a site … Stops would be 430 or 530m from the site. Neither of these is an impractical or unreasonable distance" (DL ¶28). "The location would therefore offer a genuine choice of transport modes" (DL ¶30). On the Connectivity Tool: "It seems only logical for the accessibility of a site to be assessed in the context of the area in which it is located … TR3 makes reference to the context of the area" (DL ¶32).
• GB7(1)(h): FAIL. "at twice the reasonable walking distance and time identified in the Framework glossary, the site would not meet the requirements of Framework Policy GB7(h)" (DL ¶29).
• GB8: PASS. Affordable housing, off-site highway and bus stop improvements, and open space and nature recovery were secured (DL ¶33-34). The site was therefore not inappropriate, and openness was not assessed (DL ¶36).
• Heritage HE6: harm "at the very lowest level" to Grade II Jincox Farm House, "clearly outweigh[ed]" by benefits (DL ¶42).
• Odour P3/P4: FAIL. "I cannot be certain that the 132 dwellings could be satisfactorily accommodated within the appeal site, irrespective of which odour contour is used" (DL ¶11). "I cannot impose a condition which could prevent the quantum of development sought from being implemented" (DL ¶14).

Planning balance

The inspector moved from GB7 to S5. The site was outside the settlement boundary but "physically well-related to an existing settlement", so S5(1)(j) applied (DL ¶51). On the benefit side there was substantial weight to housing (HO7), to affordable housing (HO8) and to Golden Rules compliance (GB8(2)); economic benefits had moderate weight; open space, BNG and highways had limited weight (DL ¶52). Against these was odour harm under P3 (DL ¶53). The conclusion was: "the benefits of approving the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects … The proposal therefore does not benefit from support from Policy S5 … and consequently would not benefit from the presumption" (DL ¶54).

What made the difference

The Green Belt case was comprehensively won by the appellant, and the council paid costs for it. The appeal failed on a site-specific amenity point, statutory-undertaker odour evidence, that was not a reason for refusal. So on these facts, a 50% affordable scheme adjoining a large settlement passes grey belt and (g)(iii) easily. With 132 homes in outline, uncertainty that the quantum can fit is itself fatal.

Transferable points

• Landscaped boundaries, TPO'd tree belts and even a (not inappropriate) sports use can be "physical features" containing development for purpose (a). They need not be robust or permanent (DL ¶21; costs DL ¶6).
• Grey belt purpose assessment does not need a fixed layout (DL ¶22). Withdrawn-plan GB assessments pre-dating grey belt carry little weight (DL ¶35; costs DL ¶5).
• (g)(iii) does not require every service to be walkable. Bus stops at 430-530 m are acceptable, and cycling counts towards a "genuine choice" (DL ¶28-30).
• The Connectivity Tool should be read in the context of the area (TR3) (DL ¶32).
• GB7(1)(h) fails where the station is about twice the Annex B reasonable walking distance, even on a pleasant route (DL ¶29).
• Where the GB7(1)(g) route succeeds, the decision proceeds through S5(1)(j) and the "substantially outweighed" balance (DL ¶51-54).
• Full costs can be awarded against a council whose grey belt and sustainability reasons were not objectively substantiated, even where the appeal is dismissed on another ground (costs DL ¶5-11).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• 132 homes, 50% affordable, adjoining Hurst Green/Oxted (category 1 settlement); council supply about 2 years, HDT 2025 38%
• Services within 1.7 km, bus stops 430 m and 530 m, station walk about twice the Annex B reasonable walking distance
• Oxted WWTW next to the site; Southern Water objected late, saying no development within 500 m / above 1.5 ouE/m3
• Separate costs decision (21 Sep 2026) - full award AGAINST the council for unreasonable grey belt, sustainability and heritage reasons, even though the appeal was dismissed

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.