Appeal 6003512

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Tandridge District Council. That application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appellant invites me to consider an amended site plan which would reduce the site area from 0.75ha to 0.48ha. The Procedural Guide for Planning Appeals is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered at appeal is essentially what was considered by the Council, and on which interested parties views were sought. I have also had regard to the ‘[name], which have now been advanced by the Holborn Studios Ltd decision.

The proposal would remain as a single dwellinghouse and outbuildings, but the amendment would represent over 50% reduction in the size of the site. This would be a significant change rather than the marginal change as suggested by the appellant.

Furthermore, I note that some neighbouring occupants have commented upon the appeal site’s relationship with its boundaries and neighbouring gardens. The change may, from the neighbour’s point of view, be a favourable change, but I cannot be certain of that. Other neighbours who did not previously comment may also have wished to do so. In the circumstances, it seems to me that natural justice dictates that they should be given an opportunity to comment upon the revised site plan.

Therefore, not only would the change be significant in terms of its size but to consider such a modification could prejudice interested parties by depriving those who should have been consulted on the change the opportunity of such consultation. Consequently, I do not find it comparable to the examples quoted by the appellant and so I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans that were before the Council when it made its decision.

The main issues are: (a) Whether or not the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; (b) The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; (c) The location of the site; (d) Pedestrian and cycle safety; and (e) If the proposed development is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) stipulates that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate unless it accords with one of the exceptions set out in the Framework. It states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and that any harm should be given substantial weight.

Both main parties have principally considered the proposal in the light of the exception at Paragraph 155 and whether the site is grey belt. However, the exception at 154 (g) of the Framework is also advanced by the appellant. This allows for the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. None of the other exceptions to inappropriate development set out in the Framework were identified by the main parties as being relevant to the proposal.

It is suggested that the appeal site would constitute previously developed land. The site is an open grassed area to the rear of Whitethorne, a large, detached dwelling. The Council considers the appeal site to form part of a field and has presented some extracts of aerial photographs taken between 1960 and 2025 to support their position. In contrast the appellant asserts the land to be part of Whitethorne’s curtilage but offers little substantive evidence.

At the time of my site visit the site was separated from the rest of the wider property by a wooden post and rail fence. The area is served by a separate access track, independent of Whitethorne although this track can be accessed directly on foot from Whitethorne. The grass had been mown and there were one or two items on the land such as benches and sheds, which would traditionally be associated with the area around a dwellinghouse. However, they cover only a very small part of the site and there is no firm information as to how long these items have been in situ. Given the resolution of the aerial photographs, they do not provide assistance on the matter.

Based on the information before me I find that on the balance of probability it has not been demonstrated that the appeal site forms part of the curtilage of Whitethorne or that it has a residential or garden use. Consequently, I am unable to conclude that the appeal scheme would meet the definition of previously developed land. Therefore, based on the information before me I find that the exception at Paragraph 154 (g) does not apply.

Notwithstanding the above, I am mindful that this is not an application for a Certificate of [name] and so it remains open to the appellant to pursue that option through a separate application.

Even if I were to find the site were Grey Belt and the proposal were to accord with the provisions of Paragraph 155 (a – c), the site is over 0.5ha. It is therefore ‘major development’ and as per 155 (d), triggers the [name] requirements of Paragraph 156. These generate requirements for affordable housing, improvements to local or national infrastructure and provision of new or improved publicly accessible green spaces. The proposal does not address the [name] and the reason for refusal specifically references the lack of affordable housing provision. As it fails to accord with these requirements, it is contrary to Paragraph 155 (d) and thus inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

I understand the case the appellant makes in relation to one dwelling not being a significant scheme in terms of the number of units being proposed. Nonetheless, the Framework’s definition of ‘major development’, which itself is based on that in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 offers the decision maker a binary choice. For residential development, a scheme is classed as ‘major development’ if it comprises 10 or more dwellinghouses or (my emphasis) if the site is over 0.5ha. There is no further threshold or minimum requirement as to the number of dwellings where the site is over 0.5ha. Thus, a development does not need to be a multi-dwelling scheme to be major development. As the appeal site is over 0.5ha, the proposal cannot be classed as anything other than ‘major development’.

I note the reference to the recent decision at [address], which was for a single dwelling, and which did not trigger the [name] requirements. However, there is nothing before me to indicate that the [address] site was over 0.5ha. I note the other schemes referenced by the appellant where the [name] did apply but they appear to meet the threshold of ‘major development’. Therefore, based on the information before me I cannot be sure that what has been presented to me is comparable to the appeal scheme.

The appellant has indicated, on a without prejudice basis, a willingness to enter a planning obligation. However, there is not a completed obligation before me and so this matter carries no weight in my decision.

In view of all of the above, I am unable to conclude other than that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposal would therefore conflict with the Framework and Policies DP10 and DP13 of the Tandridge Local Plan 2014 (TLP) which both seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

[name] found that the proposal would be inappropriate development, the harm to the openness of the Green Belt must be considered.

Although there is built form and residential activity on all sides of the site, a scheme of this nature and scale, on an area of undeveloped grassed land would result in some harm to openness in both spatial and visual terms. However, both aspects will be largely limited to the site and land immediately adjacent to it. This is because it would be contained by the existing boundary planting and built form, which collectively limit any long-distance views of the site.

However, even in the absence of such wider views of the site, as per Paragraph 153 of the Framework, any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, attracts substantial weight.

Policy DP5 of the TLP sets out a number of criteria against which proposals will be assessed. One of these criteria is whether a development provides safe and suitable access to the site which is achievable by all and promotes access by public transport, foot and bicycle to nearby residential, commercial, retail, educational, leisure and recreational areas where appropriate. The need to support sustainable transport options generally accords with the objectives of the Framework.

The site lies to the east of Oxted and Hurst Green and outside of their built up areas. Although my site visit was only a snapshot of a weekday morning it seemed to accord with the appellant’s characterisation of the area around the site as being a semi-rural environment. [site address] was not heavily trafficked, and it was comparatively easy to walk to the junction with [address], where there is a public bridleway down towards the A25 and also into Oxted.

Whilst at certain times of the day/year, the bridleway may be harder and less safe to negotiate, I acknowledge that on occasions it would offer some residents both a leisure route and a path towards Oxted and Limpsfield. However, in reality, it seems unlikely that many residents would regularly choose to walk to Oxted and back to undertake everyday tasks. Whilst accessing the much more limited facilities in Limpsfield on foot might be an option it is unlikely to be a genuine alternative in most instances to using a car.

The bridleway could also be used by those with a suitable bike and it would offer a predominantly off-road route through to Oxted and Hurst Green. [site address] itself appears to be a relatively quiet country lane with little in the way of through traffic. However, to the west it connects with country lanes which would be busier and more challenging for cyclists. During the course of my site visit, [address] to the east, appeared to be a well trafficked road. It has a 40mph speed limit and no cycle lane. To my mind, even though it would be possible to then connect to the A25, which does have a cycle lane to get to Oxted, cycling on [address] is only likely to be an attractive option to a more proficient and confident cyclist.

Also, very close to the [site address] /[address] junction are bus stops. Accessing the northbound stop involves a short walk along [address]. Waiting for a bus involves either standing on the verge or in the road. Even acknowledging that rural locations are less likely to have much associated bus stop infrastructure this would not be a particularly pleasant, enticing or safe prospect for many residents. The southbound bus stop is close to a bend in the road but with care, it would be possible to cross the road safely. This stop is served by a lay-by and so offers a less exposed position from which to await a bus. The bus service is not overly frequent but from the information before me appears to offer a service between Westerham and Oxted albeit not on Sundays. There is also a school bus service which uses the stops.

The main parties have provided examples and commentary on various other decisions, particularly in the local area. In the case of [address], although for two dwellings, it offers some parallels with this appeal. However, there are no details in that decision as to the cycling or walking options which would have been available to future occupiers. The decisions for The Willows and at [address] are in different parts of the country and so it is not clear if the development plan requirements are the same. Furthermore, there is insufficient information before me to be certain that the distances and routes are comparable.

In the case of Marhaba, there was an extant permission for a dwelling at the site, and in the [address] case the Inspector found there to be a fallback position of a Class Q conversion, which is not the case here. It appears that the Council withdrew its reason for refusal for the Ashlone site.

[name] development is of a different magnitude of development and scale of benefit to be truly comparable to the current proposal. [address] is similarly of a different scale of development, and the Inspector clearly sets out why safe and suitable access to the site would be achieved for all users. The development at [address] is in Essex and for 173 dwellings. In that case there was no disagreement as to the suitability of the site’s location.

Parallel to these cases, the appellant discounts the Council’s references to the [address] and Chedworth decisions. This is on the basis of them being multi dwelling schemes and thus materially different from a single dwelling scheme. This approach is comparable to my own on the multi-dwelling schemes referred to previously by the appellant.

I also note the references to the connectivity tool, which provides an additional reference aid. It appears that there may have been some inconsistency in how the scoring has been interpreted for different sites in the area. However, for this appeal site taken in isolation it does not offer an encouraging score. However, it is only one factor to be taken into consideration and along with the quoted appeal decisions, demonstrates the need to assess each case holistically and the sustainable transport opportunities which are available, which is what I have done.

I acknowledge that given the options which are available, the site might be better served than some other, more rural locations. I also appreciate that there is generally a greater reliance on the private car in rural areas such as this one, particularly where there is an absence of features such as street lighting and so it is likely that for many day-to-day tasks, a resident would choose to use their car. Nonetheless, each option which is available very clearly has limitations, meaning that, overall, the sustainable transport options which are available would not provide a genuine sustainable transport choice for all future residents.

I am mindful of the advice set out in the Framework, which acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Nonetheless, it also maintains the requirement to actively manage growth to support sustainable travel and prioritise non-car modes and ensure safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users.

Policy DP5 of the TLP requires that all residents are provided with a safe and suitable access to the site and that access by sustainable transport is promoted. The proposal would not achieve this for all future residents of the development. [name] acknowledge that the options which do exist may help to mitigate the scale of the conflict with the development plan, there would nevertheless remain some conflict with the policy and its overall objectives.

It is evident from the previous main issue that the walking and cycling routes to Limpsfield, Hurst Green and Oxted would not provide ideal environments for all users. By their very nature they would inherently limit the number of people who might wish to use them. However, the reasons for them not being attractive options for possible future residents would comprise a range of different reasons and not just matters of highway safety.

The routes available would involve some element of using existing roads where there is no cycle lane or footpath. Where this does occur, the nature of the environment would be likely to act as a disincentive for many with only the more proficient or confident user choosing that option. Although they would not provide a sustainable transport option for all future occupants, on the whole they do not appear to be significantly less safe than many other, more urban environments and contexts.

Providing the infrastructure upgrades suggested by the County Council would not appear to be proportionate for a single dwellinghouse and without further details they may have other implications which have not been considered. I am also mindful that the Highway Authority notes that the scale of the site is too low to enable a sufficient [name] contribution to be made which would deliver a meaningful scheme.

Paragraph 116 of the Framework advises that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe. Clearly there are some aspects of these routes which would be more challenging in terms of access and staying safe, and this is likely to reduce the number of residents who would pursue them.

However, factoring all these matters in together, there is insufficient evidence before me in order to be able to conclude that there would be an unacceptable risk to highway safety (or a severe impact on the road network). Therefore, on balance, I find that the proposal would accord with Policy DP5 of the TLP insofar as highway safety would be maintained.

There is no dispute that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. The Council does not dispute the appellant’s contention that supply is currently 1.92 years or that the last [name] result was 42%. The proposal would boost the supply of housing, and there would be some economic benefits in both the short and longer terms. There may also be some social benefits from an additional household in the area.

Furthermore, the proposal is said to be a self-build dwelling. I have no details as to the level of provision in the area or the extent to which supply is or is not meeting or exceeding demand for such housing. It was not a contentious issue in this appeal but as it is a form of development that is supported by national policy this aspect of the scheme carries positive weight.

The information submitted with the appeal suggests that the proposal would be able to comply with the [name] (BNG) requirements by providing off-site provision. The statutory BNG condition would apply to any permission and is a matter the appellant would need to address directly with the Council. In such circumstances there would be no need for a legal agreement. The provision of BNG weighs in favour of the scheme.

Whilst the level of housing undersupply adds to the importance of any additional new dwelling, the overall benefits of the scheme are tempered by the scale of the development.

The appellant is concerned that the approach the Council has taken in regard to Grey Belt land may have been unduly influenced by the site being in an area that would potentially be designated as National Landscape. The proposal was considered by the Council in relation to the wider landscape and the possible future designation, but this was not identified as an impediment to the proposal and did not form a reason for refusal or appear to have unduly influenced the decision. The Officer Report does not make reference to the term ‘grey belt’, but it does reference the appropriate Framework paragraph and so this makes no material difference to the assessment. Consequently, in these circumstances, I have not had further regard in this decision to the appellant’s concerns as they appear to be a matter that should be taken up directly with the Council.

I have concluded that the appeal scheme would be inappropriate development that would, by definition, harm the Green Belt. I have also found that it would result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

Consequently, such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In order to constitute very special circumstances, the circumstances cited in support of a proposal must not just outweigh the harm to the Green Belt but clearly outweigh it. I have considered the matters put before me which are in favour of the scheme. However, for the reasons given, I conclude that these other considerations as presented and when taken together do not clearly outweigh the substantial weight I have afforded to the Green Belt harm. Therefore, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development have not been shown to exist in this appeal.

I have found the proposal would not raise highway safety concerns. Whilst this finding does not weigh against the proposal, it does not overcome the inherent difficulties of the site’s location and the proposal’s conflict with the sustainable transport policy, albeit the scale of conflict is lessened by the options which do exist.

Whilst the Council does not currently have the required supply of deliverable housing sites, the conflict with the Green Belt provides a strong reason for refusing the proposal, meaning that the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in Framework paragraph 11(d)(ii) is not engaged.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, to outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.