- Decision
- dismissed, 18 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Barry John Lomax
- Authority
- Tandridge (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6009966
- Application reference
- TA/2025/954
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for up to 5 dwellings on a paddock
- Homes
- 5
- Site context
- green belt, open countryside, rural lane
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 2014 DP5, DP7, DP10, DP13, Tandridge Core Strategy 2008 CSP18
- Main issues
- grey belt; sustainable location; openness; character and appearance; VSC balance
Summary
Permission in principle for up to 5 dwellings on a paddock in the Green Belt, about 800 m outside South Nutfield. Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i) and (ii) were all common ground. The appeal failed on limb (iii) sustainable location, because the walking and cycling routes are unlit lanes with no continuous footway and the bus evidence was thin. As inappropriate development, substantial weight to the housing benefit did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt, openness, character and travel harms.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework; "references to the Framework in this decision are to the August 2026 version" (DL ¶7–8).
- Local plan GB exceptions out of date. DP13 replicates 2012 ¶89 exceptions, is "inconsistent with current national policy", so the GB7 exceptions are applied directly (DL ¶11–12).
- GB7(1)(e) PDL: FAIL. "the site does not comprise PDL for the purposes of the Framework and the exception in policy GB7 1(e) is not satisfied" (DL ¶13).
- Grey belt / GB7(1)(g)(i)–(ii): PASS (common ground; DL ¶15–17).
- GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: FAIL. "These roads are subject to speed limits of 40mph and 30mph respectively and lack continuous footways and street lighting. As a result, pedestrians and cyclists would be required to share the carriageway with vehicular traffic for much of the journey" (DL ¶21). On the bus: "limited evidence has been submitted concerning the frequency, hours of operation, all destinations served, or reliability of that service … I cannot be satisfied that it would provide a convenient and attractive alternative" (DL ¶22). On scale: "the proposal does not engage criterion (a) of the policy to the same degree as a larger-scale development … Nevertheless, Policy TR3 must be read as a whole … would not provide future occupants with a genuine choice of transport modes" (DL ¶27). Conclusion: "criterion iii) of policy GB7 1(g) of the 2026 Framework is not satisfied" (DL ¶28).
- Consistency. Previous 9-dwelling PIP dismissal on the same site given "significant weight" absent material change (DL ¶25). Other appellant comparators given limited weight (DL ¶19).
- Highway authority remit. Appellant argued the CHA exceeded its powers in commenting on sustainability. Given "little weight": the inspector reached the conclusion "irrespective of the CHA's consultation response" (DL ¶43).
- Openness: significant harm. Undeveloped paddock; conflicts with the encroachment purpose (DL ¶33).
- Character: harm (DL ¶36–37).
Planning balance
GB6(2) VSC. Harm: inappropriateness plus openness and encroachment (substantial), character (significant), unsustainable travel (significant). Benefits: housing (substantial), economic and SME small-site benefits (moderate each). "insufficient to clearly outweigh" (DL ¶45). S5(5) not reached: "the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development" (DL ¶50).
What made the difference
The route to services: 800 m of unlit lane with no continuous footway to reach the village edge, then a similar distance again, with pedestrians in the carriageway, and no proper evidence on the bus. It made no difference that five dwellings would generate only modest traffic: TR3 was read as a whole. To pass, the site would have needed a continuous lit footway, or a documented bus service with usable frequency and hours.
Transferable points
- Small scale does not rescue limb (iii). TR3 "must be read as a whole", and a genuine choice of modes is still required even where TR3(1)(a) is only weakly engaged (DL ¶27).
- Unevidenced bus claims (no frequency, hours, destinations or reliability) carry little weight (DL ¶22).
- Lanes without continuous footways and lighting, where pedestrians share the carriageway, "materially diminish the attractiveness of walking and cycling" (DL ¶21).
- A previous dismissal on the same site carries significant weight on location unless circumstances materially change (DL ¶25).
- A local plan GB exceptions policy modelled on the 2012 NPPF is inconsistent, so GB7 applies directly (DL ¶11–12).
- A highway authority's comments on sustainability are admissible, but the decision-maker forms its own view (DL ¶43).
- A Green Belt scheme that is inappropriate gets no S3/S5 presumption. S5(5) routes GB proposals to GB7 (DL ¶49–50).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(e) | fail | paddock; no evidence of permanent structure or fixed surface infrastructure, so not PDL (DL 13) | |
| AnnexB:grey-belt | pass | common ground, inspector agrees (DL 15) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(i) | pass | common ground, would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB (DL 16) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | no 5YHLS, so unmet need (DL 17) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | fail | 800 m to settlement edge, services a similar distance beyond; 40/30 mph lanes, no continuous footways or lighting; hail-and-ride bus unevidenced (DL 21-23, 28) | |
| TR3 | conflict | significant | 5 dwellings do not engage TR3(1)(a) as strongly as a large scheme, but TR3 "must be read as a whole" and is breached (DL 27); unsustainable travel given significant weight (DL 44) |
| GB6(2) | fail | substantial | inappropriate; significant/substantial openness harm and encroachment (purpose c); VSC not shown (DL 33, 44-46) |
| DP3 | harm | significant | urbanising effect on rural paddock; conflict with DP7 and CSP18 (DL 36-37, 44) |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | up to 5 homes against a significant shortfall, "small but meaningful" (DL 39) |
| S5(5) | not-engaged | inappropriate GB development gets no presumption; S5(5) only applies if not inappropriate after GB7 (DL 49-50) |
Key facts
- Site c. 800 m from edge of South Nutfield; first services a similar distance beyond
- Coopers Hill Road (40 mph) and Kings Cross Lane (30 mph) lack continuous footways and street lighting; pedestrians share the carriageway
- Hail-and-ride bus service claimed, but no evidence on frequency, hours, destinations or reliability
- Previous PIP for 9 dwellings on the same site dismissed 17 Nov 2025 (APP/M3645/W/25/3371822); given significant weight for consistency
- Tandridge cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply (figure not stated in letter)
Related decisions
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.