# 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 (years):** 1.28
- **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
- **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, national-landscape, landscape-harm, substantially-outweighed, s5-5-green-belt-route, small-scheme, self-build, housing-shortfall, sustainable-location-pass

## 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
- **GB7(1)(g): pass.** council conceded grey belt after the 2026 Framework; not fundamentally undermining, very low supply, sustainable location — Green Belt reason fell away (DL 4)
- **N4(1): fail (substantial weight).** incongruous domestic encroachment into Surrey Hills National Landscape; loss of visual separation (DL 10-11, 17)
- **DP3(1): fail.** fails to respond to context; DP3(3) says refuse without clear justification (DL 15-16, 25)
- **S5(2): fail.** conflict with policies saying proposals "should be refused" means benefits substantially outweighed (DL 19-20, 26)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 1.28-year supply; overall benefits substantial weight (DL 21-24)
- **TR3: benefit.** a "fairly sustainable location" without reliance on private vehicle (DL 22)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007130
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/694c4646-427f-4c58-b574-6218950dbfe6

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007130.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.