# Land west of Hedgehog Lane (Longdene House), Haslemere

- **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Dring
- **Authority:** Waverley (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6006581
- **Application reference:** WA/2025/01986
- **Procedure:** hearing
- **Development:** Outline (access only) phased development of 14 dwellings - up to 8 affordable (social rent) and 6 self/custom build plots claimed as affordable - with access road, amenity space and landscaping
- **Homes:** 14
- **Site context:** national-landscape, valued-landscape, settlement-edge, near-station, TPO
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Housing land supply (years):** 1.28
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** N4(1), N4(4), S5(1)(h), HO7
- **Development plan policies:** Waverley Local Plan Part 1 2018 RE3, AHN1, AHN3, Waverley Local Plan Part 2 2023 DM1, DM4, DM15, Haslemere Neighbourhood Plan 2021 H1, H5, H11
- **Main issues:** National Landscape, landscape character, affordable housing, self-build as affordable housing, S5 balance
- **Tags:** station-route-h, national-landscape, landscape-harm, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, affordable-led, self-build, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, previous-appeal-consistency, l3-station-density-waived, sbcb-not-affordable

## Summary
An outline scheme for 14 homes (8 social rent, 6 self/custom build plots) on an enclosed grazing field at the edge of Haslemere. About 70% of the site is in the Surrey Hills National Landscape and the rest is in its setting. Dismissed after a hearing. The site passed S5(1)(h) because it is within reasonable walking distance of Haslemere station and adjoins the town, and the benefits carried substantial weight against a 1.28-year supply. Even so, permanent harm to the National Landscape and its setting "substantially outweigh[s]" the benefits. The appellant's claim that the self-build plots counted as affordable housing, making a 100% affordable rural exception scheme, failed for lack of evidence.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The hearing was held before 17 August. "Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework, and I will take it into consideration" (DL ¶8).
- **National Landscape: N4(1), N4(4) CONFLICT.** The scheme is not major development under N4(2) and footnote 59 (DL ¶12), so N4(1) and N4(4) apply (DL ¶13). The 30% of the site outside the NL "forms part of the setting of the NL and therefore sensitive consideration of the whole site is required" (DL ¶14). Visual effects are limited, but "landscape effects extend beyond visual impact alone" (DL ¶23). "the urbanisation proposed would lead to the substantial erosion of the site's rural character, which in turn would result in considerable harm to landscape character" (DL ¶21). "The proposal would neither conserve nor enhance the NL or its setting and harm to it would not be avoided or minimised" (DL ¶27).
- **Affordable housing: complies.** Eight social rent units (57%) exceed the AHN1 30% requirement and are properly secured by the UU, with nomination rights and a delivery trigger tied to the SBCB plot sales (DL ¶¶35–40).
- **Self-build plots as affordable housing: NOT SHOWN.** The parties agreed that self-build can in principle be affordable housing (DL ¶46), but it must still meet the Annex B definition. "there is no evidence before me on the current open market value of the plots. There is no valuation provided" (DL ¶57). No build costs were given (DL ¶58). An 11-year-old St Edmunds Lane decision claiming self-build is 20–55% cheaper was not accepted as evidence (DL ¶60). There was no workable eligibility or nomination test (DL ¶¶63–66). "it has not been demonstrated that the six proposed SBCB dwellings would provide affordable housing in line with the definition set out in the Framework" (DL ¶67). As a result the scheme "should not be treated as a rural exception site" (DL ¶73).
- **S5(1)(h): PASS.** Reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station was agreed (DL ¶78). "Notwithstanding that I have found harm in relation to landscape matters above, the site sits directly adjacent to the settlement, with access into the site already present from the adjacent built up area … physically well-related to the settlement, in proximity and spatial connectivity terms" (DL ¶79). The inspector did not go on to S5(1)(j) (DL ¶80).
- **L3(2)(c) density: neutral.** The scheme falls below 35 dph near a station, but "given the location of the site, being within the NL and its setting, applying such a density requirement would be inappropriate in this case" (DL ¶88).
- **Previous appeals.** The 2019 decision was given limited weight because that scheme was materially different. The inspector reached "similar conclusions" to the 2023 Inspector on a 16-unit scheme (DL ¶¶28–29).

## Planning balance
This was an S5(1) balance under S3. On the benefit side: HO7 housing, affordable and SBCB together "attract substantial weight" (DL ¶84), economic and social benefits moderate (DL ¶85), and landscaping and BNG over 10% limited (DL ¶86). The inspector called these "substantial benefits" overall (DL ¶87). On the harm side: "The permanence and irreversibility of the harm that would result to the NL as a Protected Landscape and to its setting, and the conflict with the Framework in this respect attracts substantial weight of such magnitude that it would substantially outweigh the substantial benefits" (DL ¶90). The decision under s38(6) followed the development plan (DL ¶94).

## What made the difference
Most of the site lies inside a National Landscape. N4(1) requires substantial weight to conserving and enhancing natural beauty, and the s85 duty to further NL purposes applies, so the landscape harm was scored at the top of the scale even though it was barely visible from outside the site. That weight was enough to defeat 57% affordable housing, a 1.28-year supply and a passed S5(1)(h) test. The same field outside a Protected Landscape, with harm confined to local character, would very probably have been allowed. The attempt to make the scheme 100% affordable and so a rural exception site failed on evidence: there was no plot valuation, no build costs and no eligibility mechanism.

## Transferable points
- A site can be "physically well-related" to a station settlement under S5(1)(h)(ii) because of proximity and access alone, even where it harms landscape character. Landscape harm is dealt with in the balance, not in the (h) gateway (DL ¶79).
- Once one S5(1) limb is met, the inspector need not consider the others (DL ¶80).
- National Landscape harm under N4(1) can "substantially outweigh" substantial housing benefits even with a supply of about 1.3 years (DL ¶90).
- Land outside the NL boundary but part of the same field is within the NL's setting under N4(4) (DL ¶14).
- Landscape character harm is separate from visual harm. Limited visibility does not neutralise it (DL ¶¶23, 26).
- Self-build plots can be affordable housing only with evidence of plot value, build costs and a workable eligibility test for "those whose needs are not met by the market" (DL ¶¶57–67). Without that evidence a scheme is not 100% affordable and not a rural exception site (DL ¶73).
- The L3(2)(c) 35 dph station-area minimum can be set aside as "inappropriate" in a Protected Landscape (DL ¶88).

## Policy findings
- **N4(2): not-engaged.** not "major development" in the NL (footnote 59) given limited scale and effect on NL purposes; agreed by parties and 2019 Inspector (DL 12)
- **N4(1): conflict (substantial weight).** ~70% of site in Surrey Hills NL; considerable harm; would neither conserve nor enhance; also fails s85 CROW Act duty to further NL purposes (DL 13, 27, 31, 89-90)
- **N4(4): conflict (substantial weight).** remaining ~30% (AGLV) is within the setting of the NL; harm not avoided or minimised (DL 14, 27, 89)
- **S5(1)(h): pass.** agreed within reasonable walking distance of Haslemere station (well-connected); directly adjoins settlement with access from built-up area so "physically well-related" despite landscape harm; no infrastructure or comprehensive-development objection (DL 78-80)
- **S5(1)(j): not-engaged.** not considered because (h) was met (DL 80)
- **HO10: fail.** not 100% affordable as SBCB plots not shown to be affordable, so not a rural exception site (DL 73)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 14 homes, 8 social rent (57%), 6 SBCB plots with substantial unmet SBCB need; 1.28-yr persistent shortfall (DL 44, 82-84)
- **HO8: benefit (substantial weight).** 57% affordable exceeds AHN1 30%; SBCB plots NOT affordable under Annex B definition (c)/(d) - no plot valuation, build costs or eligibility mechanism (DL 35-40, 57-67, 72)
- **L3(2)(c): neutral.** below 35 dph station-area minimum but applying it would be inappropriate in NL and setting; Council did not object (DL 88)
- **S5(1): fail.** permanent irreversible NL harm "substantially outweigh" substantial benefits (DL 90)
- **WLP RE3, DM1, DM4, DM15, NP H11: conflict.** consistent with Framework NL policy; conflict with plan as a whole (DL 31, 75, 94)

## Key facts
- Council housing land supply agreed at 1.28 years, persistent shortfall
- About 70% of site in Surrey Hills National Landscape, remainder in AGLV and NP "Green Finger"
- Sloping enclosed grazing field; visual effects "localised and limited" but landscape character harm considerable
- Third residential appeal on the site; 16 dwellings dismissed 2023, larger scheme dismissed 2019
- Within reasonable walking distance of Haslemere station (agreed), directly adjacent to settlement edge
- Around 135 dwellings at adjacent Grasslands Close did not help - little visual relationship with site
- UU secured 8 social rent units (57%) and 6 SBCB plots at 20% plot discount; no plot valuation or build-cost evidence
- Hearing held 9 June 2026; parties given chance to comment on the 2026 Framework afterwards
- Costs application by appellant decided separately (not read)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006581
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b42d505d-3945-44e5-8d4b-89b19821909b

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006581.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.