# Fourays, Horsham Road, Capel

- **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Stewart Glassar
- **Authority:** Mole Valley (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6012763
- **Application reference:** MO/2026/00653
- **Procedure:** householder
- **Development:** Detached garage (c. 36.5 sq m) and extended driveway in the front garden
- **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, PDL
- **Green Belt:** yes
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e)
- **Development plan policies:** Mole Valley Local Plan 2024 EN1
- **Main issues:** inappropriate development
- **Tags:** householder, pdl-e-limb, residential-garden-pdl, not-inappropriate, openness-harm-not-substantial

## Summary
A garage and drive in the grassed front garden of a Green Belt house. Allowed under GB7(1)(e). The site is PDL (Council concession from a previous appeal), and the spatial and visual loss of openness was real but "not substantial". The 2026 Framework raised "no new considerations" (DL ¶3).

## Issues and findings
- **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "as there is currently no built form in this part of the site there would inevitably be a spatial loss of openness" (DL ¶8). "even if this resulted in some harm to the openness of the Green Belt, given the amount and type of development proposed as well as where it would be positioned, I do not find that this would result in substantial harm" (DL ¶10).
- No need to consider other exceptions or VSC (DL ¶12).

## Planning balance
None needed. Allowed with tree, ecology and lighting conditions.

## What made the difference
The PDL concession. Once that was given, GB7(1)(e)'s "substantial harm" threshold is a low bar for a single garage in a screened garden.

## Transferable points
- For householder outbuildings on rural residential curtilage accepted as PDL, GB7(1)(e) provides a route with a "not substantial harm to openness" threshold, rather than the (b) proportionality test (DL ¶6–11).
- Some loss of openness on an undeveloped part of a PDL site is compatible with (e) (DL ¶8, ¶10).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(e): pass.** Council accepted the site as PDL (per earlier appeal); some spatial openness loss in the grassed front garden (about 20% of it) but not substantial; well screened (DL 6-11)
- **GB6(2): not-engaged.** not inappropriate, so no VSC (DL 12)

## Key facts
- Garage and drive would occupy just over 20% of the front garden, which currently has no built form
- Mature trees and vegetation largely conceal the site; outbuildings forward of dwellings are common locally
- PDL status accepted by the Council from a previous appeal on the site

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012763
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/66054856-ae20-4b97-aee9-e87d028cfb5e

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012763.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.