Woodstock House, Mole Street, Ockley

Decision

dismissed, 18 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: J Bowyer

Authority

Mole Valley (South East)

Appeal reference

6011498

Application reference

MO/2026/00517

Procedure

written representations

Development

Retrospective s73/s73A variation of conditions 2-5 and 9-11 on a 2021 permission for 2 replacement dwellings (as-built changes to siting, large flat-roof dormers, synthetic slate, new access track)

Homes

2

Site context

open countryside

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

DP3, DM6, S5(1), S5(2)

Development plan policies

Mole Valley Local Plan 2024 EN2, EN4, EN8, EN13, INF2, INF3

Main issues

character and appearance; conditions tests

Summary

A retrospective s73 appeal (against non-determination) seeking to swap the approved plans for two replacement dwellings in the Surrey countryside for the as-built scheme, and to "vary" six details conditions. The as-built scheme had large flat-roof dormers, shiny synthetic slate and a long new access track. The appeal was dismissed. The as-built changes failed DP3 and harmed an Area of Great Landscape Value. The details conditions still met DM6 and could not be discharged through s73. Under S5 the inspector held that, even if a category applied, the benefits (no more homes than already approved) were substantially outweighed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Parties had the opportunity to address the updated Framework in writing (DL ¶3).
• Procedure. "there is no power under s73/s73A of the Act to approve details reserved by conditions" (DL ¶8). The DM6 tests were applied to each condition (DL ¶9). Whether the original permission lapsed under s73(4) is not for the s78 appeal (DL ¶12).
• Character — DP3 / EN2, EN4, EN8: FAIL. The access route is "significantly more urbanising than the short connection to the existing driveway approved" (DL ¶18). The dormers "cause the dwellings to appear top-heavy and unbalanced … a notably suburban quality" (DL ¶19). Built-up-area dormer examples were not comparable (DL ¶21). The synthetic slate "has a somewhat shiny quality and a flatness which results in a clearly artificial appearance" and conflicts with DP3's "coherent palette of materials" (DL ¶¶27–28).
• Conditions — DM6: PASS (conditions retained). Materials, hard surfacing, drainage (no calculations or ditch capacity), 10% carbon reduction (Part L report incomplete), boundary treatment (inconsistent tree details) and EV charging are all still necessary (DL ¶¶26–50).

Planning balance

The plan-led conflict (policies "broadly consistent with the Framework", DL ¶52) was followed by the S5 test. "Even if I were to find that the proposal would be a form of development listed at Policy S5(1.), the adverse effects … would be contrary to national decision-making policies … In particular, requirements within Policy DP3" (DL ¶54). The benefits were only family homes already permitted, and access safety claims were unevidenced (DL ¶55). Neutral factors included highway safety, living conditions and heritage (DL ¶56). "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶57).

What made the difference

The comparison was with the extant 2021 permission, not with an empty field. The proposal added no homes and no other benefit, so any DP3 harm from the as-built changes was enough. Oversized flat-roof dormers, artificial-looking slate and a long new track in AGLV countryside were visible from footpaths. A scheme closer to the approved design, with clay tiles, small pitched dormers and the approved short access, would probably have been approved as a minor material amendment.

Transferable points

• In a s73 variation the benefits are measured against the existing permission; where no extra homes or public benefit result, modest DP3 harm substantially outweighs the benefits (DL ¶¶55, 57).
• Inspectors may skip identifying the S5(1) category and apply the S5(2)/DP3 route "even if" a category applies (DL ¶54). This is a pragmatic but loose use of S5.
• DP3's "coherent palette of materials" was used to reject a synthetic slate that looked artificial (DL ¶28).
• s73/s73A cannot discharge details conditions; appellants need a s78(1)(b) appeal (DL ¶8).
• Unconfirmed National Landscape boundary extensions carry no N4 weight; local AGLV policy did the work (DL ¶14).
• Drainage conditions are not satisfied by evidence that the as-built system has coped with heavy rain, without design-storm calculations (DL ¶35).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Site designated Countryside Beyond the Green Belt and Area of Great Landscape Value; proposed Surrey Hills NL extension not yet confirmed
• Dwellings built and occupied without discharging pre-commencement or pre-occupation conditions
• Council says as-built development differs materially, so the 2021 permission may have lapsed (s73(4)); inspector did not decide lawfulness (DL 11-12)
• Access track mostly outside the original red line; appellant said it followed an occasional historic farm route
• Appeal against non-determination; council would have refused

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.