# Norbryght, Tilburstow Hill Road, South Godstone

- **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: CM Blair
- **Authority:** Tandridge (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6004344
- **Application reference:** 2025/837
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Demolition of a storage barn and erection of a dwelling with parking and garden (non-determination appeal)
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** green-belt, PDL, rural-lane, open-countryside, valued-landscape
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(5), DP3, TR3, F8
- **Development plan policies:** Tandridge Core Strategy 2008 CSP1, CSP18, CSP20, CSP21, Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 2014 DP1, DP7, DP13, DP21
- **Main issues:** Green Belt, character and appearance, living conditions, highway safety, sustainable location, flood risk
- **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, sustainable-location-fail, design-refusal, old-wording-slip, transitional-no-consultation, small-scheme, non-determination

## Summary
Replacement of a storage barn with a single dwelling in the Tandridge Green Belt. As PDL redevelopment without substantial openness harm the scheme fell within GB7(1)(e), so it was not inappropriate. It was dismissed in the S5(5) balance on design, living conditions, car dependence and unevidenced surface-water drainage.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The Inspector was required to apply the new Framework but did not consult, because it did "not substantially alter the national policy context" (DL ¶4).
- **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "the proposal would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Factors influencing my view include the scale of the proposal compared to the barn that would be replaced" (DL ¶6).
- **Design: FAIL.** Render, crown roof and cramped frontage "would fail to respect the established spatial pattern" (DL ¶¶10–13).
- **Location: harm, reduced weight.** On the unlit 40 mph lane with no footway, "use of the development would be heavily dependent on private car travel" (DL ¶23). "as the proposal is only for a single dwelling, the overall impact on the pattern of growth … would be limited. This reduces the amount of weight" (DL ¶24).
- **Flood risk: FAIL** for lack of drainage evidence (DL ¶¶27–28).

## Planning balance
S5(5), after GB7 was passed. Moderate weight to one home and limited weight to local finance. The letter says the adverse effects "would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits … (in accordance with Policy S5)" (DL ¶31). That is the 2024 §11(d) wording; S5 says "substantially outweighed". This is a drafting slip that did not affect the outcome.

## What made the difference
Green Belt was not the problem: PDL let a new dwelling through GB7(1)(e). The scheme failed on ordinary merits: poor design, substandard bedrooms, drainage, and a car-dependent location (given reduced weight because it was one dwelling).

## Transferable points
- A barn-to-dwelling rebuild on PDL of comparable scale can be not inappropriate under GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶6).
- Once GB7 is passed, the S5(5) balance is run, and it can still be lost on design, amenity and drainage (DL ¶31).
- An unlit 40 mph lane with no footway gives "heavily dependent on private car travel", though a single dwelling's harm is given reduced weight (DL ¶¶21–24).
- Some Inspectors still slip into the "significantly and demonstrably" language under S5 (DL ¶31).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(e): pass.** PDL common ground; scale compared to the barn means no substantial openness harm → not inappropriate (DL 6-8)
- **DP3: fail.** smooth render, crown roof, cramped frontage fail to respect context (DL 10-16)
- **TR3: harm (limited weight).** unlit 40 mph lane, no footway/cycle provision, no services within walking distance → heavily car-dependent; weight reduced because single dwelling (DL 21-25)
- **TR4: pass.** no highway safety harm; no evidence of more trips than the lawful storage use (DL 22)
- **P3: fail.** poor outlook and bedrooms below national space standards (DL 18-20)
- **F8: fail.** surface water flood risk area; no drainage evidence (DL 27-28)
- **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling (DL 30)
- **S5(5): fail.** not inappropriate so S5(5) applied, but letter uses old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" wording (DL 31)

## Key facts
- Large metal storage barn with lawful storage use (CLU 2024/699) on a long private lane
- Tilburstow Hill Road unlit, 40 mph, no footway; buses on A22; station at South Godstone
- Previous outline appeal APP/M3645/W/23/3326161 dismissed for lack of openness detail
- Revised plans submitted at final comments were not accepted
- Inspector did not consult on the new Framework, saying it does "not substantially alter the national policy context"

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004344
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b038bd7c-86ae-44a4-817f-5c3cc1726bdb

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004344.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.