# Stables opposite Manor House, Headley Common Road, Headley

- **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Pattison
- **Authority:** Mole Valley (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6005150
- **Application reference:** MO/2024/1318
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use and conversion of redundant stables to a one-bedroom dwelling
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane, valued-landscape
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), S5(5), S5(2), DP3(3), TR3
- **Development plan policies:** Mole Valley Local Plan 2024 EN1, S1, EN4, H10, EN9
- **Main issues:** inappropriate development, suitable location, living conditions, BNG
- **Tags:** grey-belt-not-needed, gb7-1-b-reuse, not-inappropriate, s5-5-substantially-outweighed, s5-2-refusal-policy, dp3-design-standards, nds-space-standards, sustainable-location-fail, lp-policy-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, small-scheme

## Summary
Conversion of redundant stables to a one-bed dwelling in the Green Belt near Headley. The scheme passed GB7(1)(b) (re-use), so it was not inappropriate. The case then fell under the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance, where the NDSS shortfall triggered DP3(3)'s direction to refuse via S5(2). Car dependence and inadequate BNG evidence added to the harm. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).
- **GB7(1)(b): PASS.** GB7(1)(b) "does not require an assessment of the proposal's impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Consequently, there is a conflict between the LP policy and the Framework" (DL ¶7). Paraphernalia "would not amount to operational development which could be considered a disproportionate increase to the original building" (DL ¶9). LP openness test "materially inconsistent" so "very limited weight" (DL ¶10–11).
- **GB7(1)(g): not reached** (DL ¶12).
- **Location / TR3: FAIL.** "future occupiers … would have to walk or cycle along the remote, narrow rural lanes, which are unlit, often involve inclines" (DL ¶16). "occupants would be largely reliant on private vehicles … due to the lack of safe pedestrian and cycle routes" (DL ¶18). Not isolated under HO11, but "lack of isolation … does not mean that the site would be reasonably accessible" (DL ¶19).
- **Living conditions: FAIL.** 44 sq m vs 50 sq m NDSS (DL ¶22).
- **BNG: FAIL** on evidence (DL ¶29).

## Planning balance
S5(5) route, because the scheme was not inappropriate after GB7 (DL ¶36). "Policy DP3.3 of the Framework is a national decision-making policy. It directs that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with explicit design standards set out in the development plan … due to the conflict with design standards, the Framework directs that the proposal should be refused" (DL ¶38). Location and BNG conflicts added. Benefits of moderate weight "do not outweigh the significant harm" (DL ¶40).

## What made the difference
Green Belt was not the problem: GB7(1)(b) re-use passed cleanly. The loss came from failing a hard development-plan design standard (NDSS), which S5(2)/DP3(3) turn into a near-automatic refusal, together with a car-dependent location. A plan-compliant floor area would have removed the S5(2) trigger and left only the travel and BNG harms in the balance.

## Transferable points
- GB7(1)(b) re-use has no openness test. Local plan policies that add one are "materially inconsistent" and get very limited weight (DL ¶7, ¶10–11).
- Domestic paraphernalia is not operational development and does not make a re-use "disproportionate" (DL ¶9).
- S5(5) applies once a GB proposal passes GB7, and S5(2) applies within it. Conflict with an explicit development-plan design standard (DP3(3)) means the adverse effects are "likely to substantially outweigh" the benefits (DL ¶36–38).
- Not being "isolated" under HO11 does not establish accessibility (DL ¶19).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(b): pass.** re-use of permanent and substantial building, no extension; domestic paraphernalia is not operational development and not a disproportionate increase (DL 8-9, 11)
- **EN1 (Mole Valley LP): accord (very-limited weight).** LP openness test for re-use is broader than GB7(1)(b), so materially inconsistent and given very limited weight under Annex A (DL 7, 10-11)
- **GB7(1)(g): not-engaged.** unnecessary once (b) passed (DL 12)
- **TR3: harm.** Headley (Tier 5) 750 m away; remote, narrow, unlit rural lanes with inclines; stations several miles; occupants largely reliant on private vehicles (DL 15-18)
- **HO11: pass.** not isolated (near other dwellings), but that does not make it accessible (DL 19)
- **DP3(3): fail.** 44 sq m vs 50 sq m NDSS minimum in LP H10, an explicit design standard, so the Framework directs refusal; engages S5(2) (DL 21-24, 37-38)
- **N2: conflict.** BNG evidence unclear (10% claimed vs LP EN9 20%); no post-development habitat plan (DL 25-30)
- **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling (DL 33)

## Key facts
- Stables on private single-track road off Headley Common Road; Metropolitan Green Belt and Area of Great Landscape Value
- Headley village core 750 m as the crow flies; Tier 5 settlement "unsuitable for development"
- Unit 44 sq m internal vs NDSS 50 sq m for a 1b2p dwelling
- Linked appeal on the storage containers at the same site (PINS-6005433) dismissed the same day

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005150
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/da2d8087-1dae-4a06-8ff6-39c5ef0b8a46

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005150.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.