# Land adjacent to Farm View Cottage (Frith Manor), Lingfield Road, East Grinstead - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Lawrence - **Authority:** Tandridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008688 - **Application reference:** TA/2024/1226 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of a two-storey detached self-build dwelling (Passivhaus-style, M4(3)) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.92 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2), Habitats Regulations - **Development plan policies:** Tandridge Core Strategy 2008 CSP1, Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 2014 DP10, DP13, DP19 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, openness, Ashdown Forest SPA, VSC balance - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, small-scheme, self-build, housing-shortfall, footway-quality, connectivity-tool-absent, costs-award, habitats-spa ## Summary A single self-build house on grassed land beside Frith Manor, outside any settlement and about 2 km from East Grinstead. The Inspector accepted the land as grey belt and found unmet need established by the 1.92-year supply. However, the site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3 even though a lit, continuous footway and bus stops were close by. The route and the service quality were not "genuinely attractive". Inappropriate development, significant openness harm and an unmitigated SPA effect were not clearly outweighed. The costs decision (separate PDF, `PINS-6008688-costs.pdf`) partly allowed costs against the Council for keeping a highway reason after the Highway Authority withdrew its objection. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were invited to comment on the revised Framework (DL ¶3). - **PDL / GB7(1)(e): not PDL.** "the evidence before me does not clearly demonstrate that it forms part of the residential curtilage of that property" (DL ¶9). - **Grey belt: PASS.** "Although it would involve some limited encroachment into the countryside, that does not preclude the site from being grey belt" (DL ¶10). - **Unmet need (ii): PASS.** "there is undisputed evidence of a significant unmet housing need within the district" (DL ¶11). - **Sustainable location (iii) / TR3: FAIL, "finely balanced".** On the walking route: "Whilst Lingfield Road benefits from street lighting and a continuous footway, the footway is relatively narrow and runs immediately adjacent to a busy road. Consequently, although walking is possible, the route is not one that would be particularly attractive or convenient for many users" (DL ¶14). On buses: "One service operates only on weekdays, neither service operates on Sundays, and frequencies are modest" (DL ¶15). Conclusion: "Whilst Policy TR3(a) does not require private car use to be eliminated, particularly in rural areas, I am not persuaded that future occupiers would have a genuinely attractive choice of transport modes such that reliance on the private car would be significantly reduced" (DL ¶17). - **Connectivity Tool.** "No Connectivity Tool assessment has been provided by either party … there is no objective connectivity score available to assist in resolving the dispute" (DL ¶18). - **Openness: significant harm.** Vegetation screening is "liable to change over time and seasonally"; a managed, garden-like appearance does not stop undeveloped land contributing to openness (DL ¶¶21–24). - **SPA: FAIL.** "a reasonable prospect falls short of the certainty required when considering the integrity of a European site" (DL ¶32). - **Oddity.** DL ¶12 says the PDL failure "would itself render the proposal inappropriate", which seems to conflate (e) and (g). DL ¶19 confirms that (g)(iii) fails in any event. ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to harm from inappropriateness and significant openness harm, plus SPA harm. On the other side: housing benefit (moderate), self-build (limited) and design/energy/accessibility features (limited, unsecured). "the other considerations … do not clearly outweigh the harm" (DL ¶38). ## What made the difference Route quality, not distance. The site had lighting, a continuous footway, nearby bus stops and a station 2 km away. Even so, the Inspector found the narrow footway beside a busy road and the thin bus timetable made the alternatives unattractive. The distinction from Beacon Platt (3339699), where all grey-belt limbs were met, was expressly the sustainability finding (DL ¶¶22, 45). A wider footway, a better bus service or a Connectivity Tool score could have tipped this "finely balanced" limb. ## Transferable points - A continuous, lit footway does not by itself make TR3 pass; its width and proximity to traffic count against attractiveness (DL ¶14). - TR3 asks whether alternatives are "genuinely attractive" enough that car reliance "would be significantly reduced", not merely whether they exist (DL ¶17). - Bus services with no Sunday running and modest frequencies are "unlikely to represent a particularly attractive option for many day-to-day journeys" (DL ¶15). - The absence of a Connectivity Tool assessment is noted as leaving "no objective connectivity score" (DL ¶18). - Unmet need already counted under GB7(1)(g)(ii) is not double-counted; one dwelling gets moderate weight against a 1.92-year supply (DL ¶34). - Vegetation screening is given little weight in openness terms because it is seasonal and changeable (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** does not strongly contribute to (a), (b) or (d); limited encroachment does not preclude grey belt (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** one dwelling would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB across plan area (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 1.92-year supply = undisputed significant unmet need; no need to resolve self-build-specific need (DL 11) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** 2 km to East Grinstead centre and station; lit continuous but narrow footway beside busy road; two infrequent bus routes, none on Sundays; "finely balanced" (DL 14-17) - **TR3: fail.** no "genuinely attractive choice of transport modes"; no Connectivity Tool assessment by either party noted (DL 17-18) - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** grassed land not shown to be residential curtilage, so not PDL (DL 9) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate development plus "significant" harm to spatial and visual openness (DL 19-26) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling against 1.92-year supply (DL 34) - **self-build: benefit (limited weight).** UU secures self-build, but one plot is a very limited contribution (DL 35) - **DP3: benefit (limited weight).** energy efficiency, M4(3), BNG and design quality unsecured or not exceptional (DL 36) - **Habitats Regulations (Ashdown Forest SPA): fail.** SAMM secured but SANG route uncertain (no receiving site, no Imberhorne Lane capacity purchased) (DL 27-32) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II Frith Manor preserved (DL 40) ## Key facts - Tandridge supply c.1.92 years - East Grinstead town centre and railway station c.2 km; Baldwins Hill facilities closer - Lingfield Road lit, with a continuous but narrow footway immediately beside a busy road - Two bus routes nearby; one weekday-only, neither on Sundays, modest frequencies - No Connectivity Tool output from either party - Earlier appeal on same site (3332537, May 2024) found reduced openness - Partial costs awarded against the Council for keeping a highway reason after the Highway Authority withdrew its objection ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008688 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/35803164-ca54-45cb-8ab7-346894116dd1 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b7597c4a-1195-481e-9d2d-d3db6a14d9d3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008688.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.