Land adjacent to Oaklands Drive, Copthorne Bank, Copthorne

Decision

dismissed, 22 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: H Miles

Authority

Tandridge (South East)

Appeal reference

6011736

Application reference

TA/2025/1318

Procedure

written representations

Development

Seven two-storey dwellings with access, garaging and parking (Asprey Homes Southern)

Homes

7

Site context

green belt, rural lane, open countryside

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt accepted)

Housing land supply

2.17 years

Housing Delivery Test

38%

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2)

Development plan policies

Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 Detailed Policies 2014 DP5, DP10, DP13

Main issues

sustainable location; grey belt; openness; VSC balance

Summary

Seven houses on an open site off Copthorne Bank, about 1 km from Copthorne's shop, school and village hall. Grey belt, unmet need and the Golden Rules limb were undisputed. The appeal was dismissed on GB7(1)(g)(iii). The walk is along a mainly unlit road with a stretch in the carriageway, so it is unattractive, and an hourly bus did not provide a "genuine choice" of modes. This was so despite a Connectivity Tool score of 52/100 and £250 travel vouchers. The scheme was therefore inappropriate, and moderate housing benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm.

Issues and findings

• Walking and cycling: "occupants would have around a 15 minute walk along a mainly unlit road. There are footpaths along the part of the road close to the site, however there is a section where pedestrians would need to walk in the road and, even though the route is straight, this would not be attractive to occupants walking from the site. Particularly in hours of darkness, for children and those with mobility issues" (DL ¶4). Cycling: "the road is mainly unlit and combined with the traffic flows it would not be an attractive cycling route for the majority of occupiers" (DL ¶4).
• Bus: the hourly service plus demand-responsive bus "would enable certain journeys from the site to be taken by bus" (DL ¶5).
• Mitigation rejected: "a financial incentive would not alter the features of the site … Nor would it apply to future occupiers if houses were sold". The 30 mph extension was unevidenced, so a Grampian condition was not reasonable (DL ¶6).
• Conclusion on (iii) / TR3: "The Department for Transport Connectivity Tool rates give the site an overall score of 52 out of 100 … However … journeys on foot and bike would not be attractive to the majority of occupants. As such, there is not a genuine choice of transport modes for residents, the location would not limit the need to travel by private car and it would not be a sustainable location" (DL ¶7).
• Other decisions: the council's approval at nearby Nyahlands Farm (2025/499) was noted but not followed. Woodside House (APP/M3645/W/24/3347328) and Antlands Lane were distinguished on scale (DL ¶8).
• Openness: there would be "clear harm" from seven two-storey houses on an open site (DL ¶13).

Planning balance

GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm, plus openness and transport harm, against moderate housing benefits (2.17 years, HDT 38%) (DL ¶16-18). VSC was not shown. S5(5) excluded S5, and the presumption did not apply (DL ¶19).

What made the difference

The gap in the footway (walking in the road), the lack of lighting on a 1 km route, and 30-40 mph traffic. A nearby hourly bus and a mid-range Connectivity Tool score did not rescue the site. The inspector treated walking and cycling attractiveness for "the majority of occupants", including children and people with mobility issues after dark, as the test. A continuous lit footway to the village would probably have changed the outcome.

Transferable points

• A Connectivity Tool score of 52/100 is not sufficient in itself. Route quality for walking and cycling decides (g)(iii) (DL ¶7).
• A section with no footway where pedestrians must walk in the road, on an unlit route, makes walking unattractive, particularly for children, people with mobility issues and in darkness (DL ¶4).
• One-off travel vouchers (£250) do not change a site's locational characteristics and do not bind later occupiers (DL ¶6).
• Speed-limit changes offered by the appellant need highway authority evidence before a Grampian condition is reasonable (DL ¶6).
• An hourly bus enables "certain journeys" but is not in itself a genuine choice of modes (DL ¶5, 7).
• Seven homes against a 2.17-year supply and 38% HDT still attracted only moderate overall weight (DL ¶16).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Shop, school and village hall about 1 km (15-minute walk) away along mainly unlit Copthorne Bank; part of route has no footway, so pedestrians walk in the road
• Speed limits recently cut from 50 mph to 30-40 mph
• Hourly Crawley-Redhill bus from stops close to site (no shelters), plus school services and Surrey Connect demand-responsive bus
• DfT Connectivity Tool overall score 52 out of 100 — the site still failed (g)(iii)
• Planning obligation offered £250 per household bus/cycle travel vouchers

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.