- Decision
- dismissed, 28 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J Heppell
- Authority
- Waverley (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6006117
- Application reference
- WA/2025/01842
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Erection of a two-storey one-bedroom detached dwelling
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- inside settlement, TPO, valued landscape
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 1.28 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- DP3(3), S4
- Development plan policies
- Waverley Local Plan Part 1 2018 TD1, RE3, NE1, Waverley Local Plan Part 2 2023 DM1, DM4, DM5, DM11, Residential Extensions SPD 2010
- Main issues
- character and appearance (AGLV); trees; neighbour living conditions; future occupier living conditions
Summary
A one-bedroom house on a wooded plot inside Godalming, within an AGLV and beside TPO trees. Waverley has only 1.28 years' supply and the housing benefit attracted substantial weight. The appeal was dismissed on localised woodland-setting harm, a risk to category A trees and harm to neighbours' outlook, with DP3(3) cited as directing refusal and the benefits found substantially outweighed under S4.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework" (DL ¶2).
- Character (AGLV): HARM. "the proposal would be an incongruous, urbanising addition to the area which would harm the AGLV's character and appearance" (DL ¶6). Concealment from public views did not help: it "would cause an unacceptable degree of localised harm to the area's woodland setting" (DL ¶7).
- Trees: HARM. Precautionary approach; "there is insufficient information before me to demonstrate that the roots of the trees would be adequately protected from damage during construction" (DL ¶11).
- Neighbour outlook: HARM (DL ¶15, ¶17); future occupiers acceptable (DL ¶21).
- HO7: substantial. "albeit in a modest manner for a single dwelling, substantial weight is given to this benefit" (DL ¶24).
- DP3(3). "Policy DP3(3) states that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with these requirements" (DL ¶26). "National decision-making Policy DP3 directs refusal in instances where proposals conflict with the Framework's key principles for well-designed places" (DL ¶27).
Planning balance
S4(1). Benefits (housing, efficient land use, social and economic) "attracts substantial weight"; the harms "would have a significant adverse effect" (DL ¶27). "I conclude that the benefits of approving development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶27). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶28). The letter says none of the S4(2) situations apply (DL ¶23) but then relies on DP3 directing refusal (DL ¶27), without an explicit clear-justification finding.
What made the difference
The site's role in a wooded AGLV belt and the unresolved root-protection evidence. A 1.28-year supply and substantial weight for one home were not enough against landscape, tree and outlook harm. Completed arboricultural investigations and a siting outside the tree belt would have been needed.
Transferable points
- Localised harm to a local landscape designation counts even where the site is hidden from public views (DL ¶7).
- A precautionary approach to high-value TPO trees is justified where the applicant's own report calls for further investigation (DL ¶11).
- A single home in an authority with 1.28 years' supply still gets substantial HO7 weight, but can be substantially outweighed by design, tree and amenity harm together (DL ¶24, ¶27).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3(1) | fail | incongruous, urbanising addition harming woodland setting of AGLV (local landscape designation acting as Surrey Hills NL buffer) (DL 5-8, 26) | |
| N2(1)(d) | harm | encroaches into RPAs of category A wellingtonias and category B trees under woodland TPO; further investigations needed, precautionary approach; future pressure to lop/fell (DL 9-13); cited in the letter via DP3 (DL 26) | |
| P3 | harm | overbearing sense of enclosure to Clockhouse Mews shared car park; no daylight harm (DL 14-17, 26) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | one home; council supply 1.28 years (DL 24) |
| L2 | benefit | efficient use of well contained site; social and economic benefits; overall benefits "attracts substantial weight" (DL 25, 27) | |
| DP3(3) | fail | quotes DP3(3) "should be refused if, without clear justification" (DL 26); "directs refusal" (DL 27); no separate clear-justification finding; letter says no S4(2) situation applies (DL 23) yet relies on DP3 directing refusal | |
| S4 | fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 27) |
Key facts
- Council supply 1.28 years (DL 24)
- Site in an AGLV which LPP1 RE3 treats as buffer to the Surrey Hills NL (DL 5)
- Earlier three-storey scheme refused (WA/2023/00518) (DL 4)
- Woodland TPO WA125; piled raft foundations proposed subject to further investigation (DL 9-11)
- Future occupier living conditions acceptable (DL 18-21)
- Parties given the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2)
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.