Chedworth, Coopers Hill Road, South Nutfield

6009966·Tandridge·18 Sept 2026dismissed·TA/2025/954

Tier label used

—

The tier sentence ¶28

“the site to local services and facilities”

Summary

Permission in principle for up to 5 dwellings on a paddock in the Green Belt, about 800 m outside South Nutfield. Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i) and (ii) were all common ground. The appeal failed on limb (iii) sustainable location, because the walking and cycling routes are unlit lanes with no continuous footway and the bus evidence was thin. As inappropriate development, substantial weight to the housing benefit did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt, openness, character and travel harms.

The location finding

GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail. 800 m to settlement edge, services a similar distance beyond; 40/30 mph lanes, no continuous footways or lighting; hail-and-ride bus unevidenced (DL 21-23, 28)
TR3: conflict. 5 dwellings do not engage TR3(1)(a) as strongly as a large scheme, but TR3 "must be read as a whole" and is breached (DL 27); unsustainable travel given significant weight (DL 44)

Why this is cited

This decision was picked up by the search on the words above, which refer to services, not to a settlement tier. no tier; route decided.

Sources

Decision on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service · full decision note · letter pins-corpus/6009966.txt

One entry in a register of 203 decisions that matched the search for a settlement-tier label, each read at every matching passage and classified by how the label influenced the decision. The quotation was checked against the source named above. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Text, data and images on this page are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence: share and adapt them freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: github.com/planningdistilled/research.