- Decision
- dismissed, 25 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: D Ellis
- Authority
- Waverley (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6006825
- Application reference
- WA/2025/01415
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Erection of a detached dwelling on backland behind a street-fronting row
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 1.28 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4
- Development plan policies
- Waverley Local Plan Part 1 2018 TD1, NE1, NE2, CC1, CC2, Waverley Local Plan Part 2 2023 DM1, DM4, DM5, DM11
- Main issues
- character and appearance; living conditions; trees; biodiversity; drainage
Summary
A single backland dwelling behind a row of street-fronting buildings in Cranleigh, following a dismissed two-dwelling scheme. The inspector found conflict with DP3(1) with no clear justification, overlooking contrary to L2(1)(d)(ii), and failures on trees (N3), biodiversity net gain (N2) and drainage (F8). Substantial weight to one home on a 1.28-year supply was substantially outweighed through S4(2)(c). Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The appellant and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework." (DL ¶2).
- Character, DP3(1): CONFLICT. The dwelling "would be out-of-keeping with the linear, street-fronting pattern of development, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶8). "This adverse effect is a matter of considerable importance to be taken into account in the planning balance." (DL ¶13).
- Privacy, L2(1)(d)(ii): FAIL. "the wide views provided by the four windows would amount to significant overlooking of the rear garden at The Coppers" (DL ¶16).
- Trees, N3: FAIL. "As it has not been demonstrated that existing trees and hedgerows could be adequately protected and maintained, I am not satisfied that a condition to secure the submission of these documents would make the development acceptable in this matter." (DL ¶26).
- BNG, N2: FAIL. "The appellant accepts that the proposal would not achieve a biodiversity net gain of 10%." (DL ¶30), with no mechanism to secure off-site gain.
- Drainage, F8: FAIL (DL ¶37).
- Housing benefit. One home on a 1.28-year supply: "these benefits, because an additional dwelling would result, should be attributed substantial weight" (DL ¶43).
- DP3(3) and S4(2)(c). "Paragraph 3 of Policy DP3 of the Framework states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of Policy DP3." Here "there is no clear justification for this conflict" (DL ¶44). Hence "I am satisfied when having regard to paragraph 2.c. of Policy S4 of the Framework that the benefits of the scheme would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects." (DL ¶44).
Planning balance
S4 with the S4(2)(c) trigger. The inspector first found that the benefits "would not outweigh the harms" on a level balance, then applied S4(2)(c) (DL ¶44). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶45).
What made the difference
The backland siting against a strong street-fronting pattern, compounded by overlooking and a string of evidence gaps (trees, ecology, BNG, drainage). A late tree survey could not cure the evidence gap because it was fresh evidence the Council had not seen.
Transferable points
- A full DP3(3) sequence: DP3(1) conflict, an express finding of no clear justification, then S4(2)(c) (DL ¶12-14, ¶44).
- L2(1)(d)(ii) privacy is a Framework test in its own right, applied to overlooking of a neighbour's garden (DL ¶20-22).
- An accepted BNG shortfall with no s106 or other mechanism fails N2; a negatively worded condition requiring an agreement is not appropriate (DL ¶30-31).
- Substantial HO7 weight on a 1.28-year supply does not survive a DP3(3) failure (DL ¶42-44).
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) | conflict | backland dwelling out of keeping with linear, street-fronting pattern; would not integrate with or enhance surroundings; increased density not justified under L2/L3; adverse effect of considerable importance (DL 8, 11-14) | |
| DP3(3) | fail | explicit step - no clear justification for the DP3(1) conflict (DL 44) | |
| L2(1)(d)(ii) | fail | four bedroom windows give wide views over neighbour's garden; significant overlooking; considerable importance (DL 16-22) | |
| N3(1)(c) | fail | no arboricultural evidence at application stage; late tree reports not accepted; condition not enough (DL 3, 26-27) | |
| N2 | fail | BNG - appellant accepts 10% not achieved and no s106 or other mechanism; negative condition not appropriate; no ecology survey (DL 30-33) | |
| F8 | fail | no surface water drainage details despite large new hardstanding (DL 35-37) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | one dwelling on a 1.28-year supply, with economic benefits and a fairly sustainable location, together substantial (DL 42-43) |
| S4 | fail | via S4(2)(c); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 40-44) |
Key facts
- Previous scheme for two dwellings dismissed on appeal (APP/R3650/W/24/3346675) for character, overlooking and fire access (DL 4)
- Tree survey, AIA and tree protection plan submitted only at appeal and excluded as fresh evidence (DL 3)
- Surrey Fire and Rescue access concerns raised but not determinative (DL 39)
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.