Land south of Old Elstead Road, Milford

Decision

dismissed, 18 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: D Ellis

Authority

Waverley (South East)

Appeal reference

6007130

Application reference

WA/2025/02158

Procedure

written representations

Development

Outline for one custom self-build dwelling

Homes

1

Site context

green belt, national landscape, settlement edge

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt accepted)

Housing land supply

1.28 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

N4(1), DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(5), S5(2)

Development plan policies

Waverley Local Plan Part 1 2018 RE3, TD1

Main issues

national landscape; character and appearance; S5(5) balance

Summary

One self-build house on an open plot in the Surrey Hills National Landscape at the edge of Milford. After the 2026 Framework took effect, Waverley conceded the site was grey belt and not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). The appeal was still dismissed under the S5(5)/S5(2) route. Conflict with N4 (protected landscape) and DP3 (policies that say "should be refused") meant the substantial housing benefits were "substantially outweighed".

Issues and findings

• Grey belt: conceded. "Following the publication of the new Framework, the Council now considers the site to constitute grey belt land and thus would not be inappropriate … the first reason for refusal falls away" (DL ¶4).
• Landscape: HARM. "the site in this location at the junction of the two roads makes a valuable contribution to the semi-rural character … and thereby to the natural beauty of the NL" (DL ¶10). "a modest yet incongruous domestic encroachment into the NL" (DL ¶11).
• N4 and DP3: conflict (DL ¶16-17).

Planning balance

The S5(5) route for not-inappropriate Green Belt development, applying S5(2): "the circumstances in which the benefits … are likely to be substantially outweighed … include … situations where the development proposal would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused" (DL ¶20). Benefits had substantial weight (1.28-year supply, HO7) (DL ¶24). But "Paragraph 3 of Policy DP3 states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 … also conflict with Policy N4 … the benefits of the scheme would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶25-26).

What made the difference

National Landscape status and the site's role as open separation. Clearing the Green Belt hurdle simply moved the case into the S5(5) balance, where N4 and DP3(3) acted as "should be refused" triggers.

Transferable points

• Not inappropriate under GB7 leads to the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance, applying S5(2) (DL ¶19-20).
• A DP3(1) conflict, via DP3(3)'s "should be refused", and an N4 conflict are S5(2) triggers that can outweigh substantial housing benefits (DL ¶25-26).
• Councils may concede grey belt when re-assessing under the 2026 Framework (DL ¶4).
• Self-build cannot be secured by condition, only by obligation (DL ¶23).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Council withdrew its Green Belt reason after the 2026 Framework took effect, conceding grey belt
• Site in Surrey Hills National Landscape and AGLV; open land giving visual separation between housing and a cluster of listed buildings
• Council supply 1.28 years
• Self-build not secured - no s106; a condition was not enforceable

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.