# Land at Mount Avenue, Chaldon (Caterham edge) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Simon Rawle - **Authority:** Tandridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006497 - **Application reference:** TA/2025/771 - **Procedure:** inquiry - **Development:** Outline permission (scale, layout and access) for up to 30 dwellings (50% affordable) with access, landscaping, SuDS and woodland open space - **Homes:** 30 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, washed-over-village, ancient-woodland - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.97 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB7(1)(g), GB8, S5(5) - **Development plan policies:** Tandridge Core Strategy 2008 CSP1, Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 2014 DP5, DP12, DP13, Caterham Chaldon and Whyteleafe Neighbourhood Plan 2025-2040 CCW1 - **Main issues:** grey belt, Golden Rules, sustainable location, S5(5) balance - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, sustainable-location-pass, connectivity-tool, golden-rules, large-scheme, affordable-led, housing-shortfall, non-determination, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, stratford-relevant ## Summary Outline scheme for up to 30 homes (half affordable) on a field on the Caterham edge, within Chaldon in the Tandridge Green Belt. Allowed after an inquiry against a non-determination. Grey belt, "fundamentally undermine" (DL ¶27) and unmet need were settled, and the Golden Rules were met. The contested limb was GB7(1)(g)(iii). The inspector found a genuine choice of modes for local trips (schools, cafe, village hall and shop within walking and cycling distance, school buses and a two-hourly bus), even though the hill to Caterham deters walking and commuting by bus would be hard. The Connectivity Tool score of 52 was read comparatively, as the top band in Tandridge. The scheme was therefore not inappropriate, and S5(5) led to approval. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I note that national policies relating to housing and the Green Belt have changed and consequently I have given both main parties the opportunity to provide comments on these changes" (DL ¶5). - **Plan weight (Annex A ¶2).** "as part of Policy DP13 is materially inconsistent with national decision-making policies that deal with developments that would utilise grey belt I afford only very limited weight to that part of Policy DP13" (DL ¶17). Only the exceptions part was cut. - **Grey belt, purpose (a): moderate only.** The site adjoins Caterham, a large built-up area, but ancient woodland, Birchwood Lane and its hedgerows form "adequate physical features in reasonable proximity that would restrict and contain development" (DL ¶23). Conclusion: "it meets the definition of grey belt land" (DL ¶26). - **GB7(1)(g)(i).** "the proposal would not materially affect the ability of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area to serve all five Green Belt purposes in a meaningful way" (DL ¶28). - **GB7(1)(g)(iv) / GB8: PASS**, and "I attach substantial weight to the fact that the proposal would comply with the Golden Rules" (DL ¶30). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS.** - Walking distance: "Land use patterns that are most conducive to walking are where there are a range of facilities within a 10-minute walk or 800m" (DL ¶34). The gradient "would act as a significant deterrent for anyone contemplating walking or cycling to the facilities and services at Caterham, including to the station" (DL ¶34). - Local destinations: "although just over the 800m range at 850m, I am satisfied that future occupants would have a genuine choice of whether to walk or cycle to them" (DL ¶35). - Buses: term-time school services "provide an adequate service for school children" (DL ¶37). The two-hourly 411 "does not provide a convenient service for any future occupants who would want to access employment opportunities further afield" (DL ¶39), but "does provide a genuine sustainable transport mode to reach other facilities and services throughout the day, including for grocery shopping at several supermarkets" (DL ¶40). - Connectivity Tool: the score "is a relative measure not an absolute measure of connectivity and it shows how places compare to other places and should always be interpreted comparatively" (DL ¶42). "The connectivity score for the appeal site is 52" (DL ¶43), comparable to Category 2 settlements (DL ¶44). - Conclusion: "while I accept that some journeys may well be made by private car, the appeal site is in a location that would limit the need to travel including by private car, particularly for certain journeys such as to schools and to reach other more local services and recreational facilities" (DL ¶45). - **Route.** "Policy S5 of the Framework which deals with the principle of development outside settlements indicates that it does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt which instead should be determined in accordance with Policies GB6, GB7 and GB8" (DL ¶50). Openness was not assessed, because the scheme is not inappropriate (DL ¶49). - **Other matters.** Design, living conditions, highways, flood risk, ecology and BNG were all acceptable (DL ¶55-60). A nearby Chaldon appeal was distinguished (DL ¶64-65). ## Planning balance S5(5). "Policy S5.5 of the Framework is clear in that the proposal should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶69). On the benefit side: substantial weight to Golden Rules compliance and to market and affordable housing (1.97 years' supply, described as "dire" (DL ¶53)), and moderate weight to economic and social benefits and to BNG (DL ¶68). No adverse effects of note were found. No should-be-refused policy was engaged (DL ¶51). ## What made the difference The site sits on the edge of a town in the highest-connectivity band in the district. Primary-age education, a cafe and the village hall are at about 850 m, and a shop is at 1.1 km. The inspector treated TR3 as satisfied by a genuine choice for local and school trips, while accepting that commuting would mostly be by car. The s106 secured traffic calming, a 20 mph TRO and bus stop upgrades, and the highway authority did not object. The council's own witness accepted at the inquiry that a sustainable-location finding was logical (DL ¶45). A remote site on unlit, unsurfaced lanes (the Willey Lane comparator) failed the same limb. ## Transferable points - The Connectivity Tool score is relative. Read it against the local authority's own bands and against settlements where development is accepted: 52 was band A in Tandridge (DL ¶42-44). - 800 m is a guide, not a cap. Facilities at 850 m still gave a genuine choice to walk or cycle (DL ¶34-35). - A steep gradient to the main town, and a bus too infrequent for commuting, did not defeat TR3 where local and school trips could be made without a car (DL ¶34, 39-40, 45). - Term-time school bus services count towards a genuine choice for families with older children (DL ¶37). - Only the grey-belt-blind exceptions part of an old Green Belt policy loses weight under Annex A ¶2 (DL ¶17, 67). - Containment of Caterham's sprawl by ancient woodland and a hedged lane made the site's contribution to purpose (a) moderate, not strong (DL ¶21-25). - Once a Green Belt scheme is not inappropriate, openness is not weighed again, and S5(5) applies with its should-be-refused carve-out (DL ¶49-51, 69). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** not PDL; (b) and (d) not strongly served (common ground); (a) moderate only, because ancient woodland, Birchwood Lane and hedgerows contain sprawl of Caterham, a large built-up area (DL 18-26) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** would not materially affect the ability of the remaining plan-area Green Belt to serve all five purposes "in a meaningful way"; common ground (DL 27-28) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** agreed supply range 1.22-1.97 years (DL 29) - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): pass.** major housing complies with GB8 (DL 30) - **GB8: pass (substantial weight).** 50% affordable, infrastructure improvements and a significant area of publicly accessible woodland open space; compliance itself given substantial weight (DL 30, 68) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** pre-school, primary school, village hall and cafe within about 850 m; shop 1.1 km; term-time school buses 150 m away; two-hourly 411 bus; gradient to Caterham a significant deterrent and commuting by bus challenging, but a genuine choice for local trips (DL 31-47) - **TR3: pass.** Connectivity Tool score 52, highest band within Tandridge and comparable to Category 2 settlements; s106 secures 20 mph TRO, traffic calming, bus stop upgrades and crossings (DL 32, 41-46, 66) - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** the grey-belt-blind exceptions part of DP13 is materially inconsistent and gets very limited weight; the rest of DP13 is consistent (DL 16-17, 67) - **S5(5): pass.** not inappropriate, no should-be-refused policy engaged, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed; they were not (DL 50-51, 69) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** market housing; supply "dire" (DL 52-53) - **HO8: benefit (substantial weight).** 15 affordable homes (DL 53) - **N2: benefit (moderate weight).** BNG 13.53% habitat and 123.23% hedgerow units (DL 60) ## Key facts - Non-determination appeal; four-day inquiry 11-18 Aug 2026; the Framework was published during the inquiry and the parties commented on it (DL 5) - Site adjoins the Caterham settlement boundary but is within Chaldon, which is not a defined village in TLP DP12 (DL 12-13) - Pre-school, primary school, village hall and cafe about 850 m; convenience shop 1.1 km; Westway Common 1.2 km (DL 35-36) - Steep gradient on the walking and cycling route to Caterham and the station is a significant deterrent (DL 34) - Bus stops about 150 m away; term-time school buses 611, 657, 658; Metrobus 411 about every two hours, with no early service towards Caterham station or evening return from Merstham or Redhill (DL 37-39) - Connectivity Tool score 52, local authority band A; comparators Woldingham 56, Godstone 55, Nutfield 52, Smallfield 50 (DL 43-44) - Highway authority no objection; executed s106 (1 Sep 2026) secures 20 mph TRO and traffic calming to Caterham on the Hill High Street, bus shelters with real-time information, crossings and affordable housing (DL 56, 66) - Chaldon Willey Lane appeal (6002299, six homes) distinguished as remote, with rural partly unsurfaced roads (DL 64-65) - Costs applications by both parties decided separately (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006497 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/99a1a635-7365-4e60-9706-2d7907d97b03 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006497.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.