- Decision
- approved, 15 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council planning committee: Elmbridge Planning Committee (case officer Graham Healey)
- Authority
- Elmbridge (South East)
- Application reference
- 2025/1444
- Procedure
- committee
- Development
- Replacement clubhouse pavilion (c.680 sqm) for junior football club, replacing five scattered structures; bin and cycle stores
- Site context
- green belt
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(f)(iv), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Elmbridge DM Plan 2015 DM17, DM18
- Main issues
- outdoor sport exception; openness minimised test; VSC
Summary
A new clubhouse for a junior football club, replacing five scattered, dilapidated structures with one building more than three times the footprint and about four times the volume. Officers held it failed the "impact on openness is minimised" condition of GB7(1)(f)(iv), so it was inappropriate. They found very special circumstances in community sports need and consolidation, and the committee approved.
Issues and findings
- GB7(1)(f)(iv): FAIL. "given the increase in size and height of the proposed development above the existing, the proposed clubhouse would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and so would not minimise the impact on the openness … and must be considered inappropriate development" (Report ¶48). Even the cycle store "would be additional built development that would fail to preserve the openness" (¶49).
- VSC: shown. "VSCs have been identified related to the public and community benefits arising from provision of enhanced sporting facilities and the strategic need for the sporting infrastructure … Significant weight has been attributed" (¶182). BNG 10% gets limited weight (¶183). "the VSC are considered to sufficiently outweigh the definitional harm" (¶184).
What made the difference
A strict reading of "minimised": any increase over existing built form fails. Community sport need then carried VSC. The report does not use HC4's "substantial weight" to community facilities (compare dacorum-25-01880-MOA) and gives significant weight instead.
Transferable points
- Elmbridge reads GB7(1)(f)'s "impact on openness is minimised" as failed by a materially larger replacement building, even where it consolidates scattered structures (¶48, ¶180).
- Community sports benefits can amount to VSC for inappropriate ancillary buildings (¶182–184).
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)(f)(iv) | fail | outdoor sport facility but footprint 227.7→734.4 sqm, volume 877.9→3,946 m3, height 4.4→7 m, so impact on openness 'not minimised' | |
| GB6(2) | pass | substantial | VSC — community sports need (girls' teams, dilapidated facilities), strategic need, consolidation of five structures, club finances; significant weight; BNG 10% limited weight |
| Elmbridge DM18 | conflict | exceeds 10% volume/footprint and height tests for replacement buildings |
Key facts
- Existing five structures 227.7 sqm / 877.9 m3; proposed 734.4 sqm / 3,946 m3, 7 m high
- Sport England no objection; Council landowner
- Approved in line with officer recommendation
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.