# Semper Fidelis, Wire Mill Lane, Newchapel

- **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Miles
- **Authority:** Tandridge (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011972
- **Application reference:** TA/2026/347
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Conversion of equestrian site to residential use, erection of eight detached dwellings
- **Homes:** 8
- **Site context:** green-belt, PDL, rural-lane, open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Housing land supply (years):** 1.92
- **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 38
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), GB6(2), TR3, S5(5)
- **Development plan policies:** Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 2014 DP10, DP13, Tandridge Core Strategy 2008 CSP1
- **Main issues:** inappropriate development / openness, sustainable transport, VSC
- **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, openness-harm, substantial-openness-harm, volume-reduction-not-enough, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, vsc-not-shown, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, grey-belt-not-argued

## Summary
Eight detached houses replacing equestrian buildings at Newchapel, the same area as Branford Wells (PINS-6010313). Dismissed. The site was agreed PDL, but eight two-storey houses would be taller, bulkier and more conspicuous than the low stables, so they would cause substantial harm to openness and fail GB7(1)(e). The site was also car-dependent under TR3. Moderate overall benefits against 1.92 years' supply did not clearly outweigh the harm. Grey belt (GB7(1)(g)) was not argued or considered.

## Issues and findings
- **GB7(1)(e): FAIL.** "although the number of buildings and volume would reduce, the proposed dwellings would be taller, bulkier and more conspicuous … there would be harm to spatial and visual openness and taken together the harm would be substantial" (DL ¶9).
- **TR3 / sustainable transport: FAIL.** "Wire Mill Lane … is a narrow rural road with no lighting or pavements … bus stops at Wembury Park with three-four services in each direction on Monday-Friday only" (DL ¶12). "Particularly in hours of darkness, for children and those with mobility issues" (DL ¶13). "even taking into account the existing situation, this would not promote sustainable transport modes" (DL ¶14).
- **S5(5).** S5 "does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt which, in these circumstances, should be determined in accordance with policies GB6 and GB7" (DL ¶19).

## Planning balance
GB6(2): substantial weight to Green Belt harm, plus harm on transport. Housing had "substantial weight" in principle but the benefits were "moderate in this case" given the scale (DL ¶16). "do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm" (DL ¶18).

## What made the difference
Built form. Swapping low, scattered equestrian buildings for eight two-storey houses with gardens and an access road raised height and visual presence, even though volume and footprint fell. The location was as car-dependent as Branford Wells. Grey belt was never run, and on these facts (g)(iii) would likely have failed too.

## Transferable points
- Under GB7(1)(e), reductions in volume and footprint do not avoid substantial openness harm where height, bulk and conspicuousness increase (DL ¶9).
- Credit for reduced trips from an existing use does not make a car-dependent location sustainable (DL ¶14).
- An unlit lane without pavements is unattractive "particularly in hours of darkness, for children and those with mobility issues" (DL ¶13).
- S5(5): for inappropriate Green Belt development, the S5 presumption does not apply and the case is decided under GB6/GB7 (DL ¶19).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(e): fail.** agreed PDL; footprint and volume fall, but eight taller (8.6 m), bulkier two-storey houses with curtilages and roads → substantial harm to openness (DL 6-11)
- **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate plus spatial and visual openness harm; VSC not shown (DL 17-18)
- **TR3: fail.** narrow lane with no lighting or pavements; bus 3-4 a day each way weekdays only; A22 unattractive for cycling; car-dependent even allowing for reduced trips from the equestrian use (DL 12-15)
- **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** substantial weight to homes given 1.92 yrs and HDT 38%, tempered by scale → moderate overall (DL 16)
- **S5(5): not-engaged.** S5 does not apply to Green Belt proposals that are inappropriate; decide under GB6/GB7; presumption does not apply (DL 19)

## Key facts
- Existing equestrian barn, stables and sand school, 6,130-7,270 m3 and ~1,780 m2 footprint, 2.9-5.6 m high
- Proposed eight houses at 6,260 m3, 990-1,090 m2 footprint, up to 8.6 m high
- Visible from a public footpath to the west and nearby properties
- Resubmission after an earlier dismissed appeal
- Tandridge supply 1.92 years, HDT 38%

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011972
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e5480714-437c-4161-9f69-5f3c8d4a49c9

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011972.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.