Appeal 6003752

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of land to a gypsy caravan site comprising of one touring caravan, a caravan and a day room at [name], [site address] , Caterham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/392, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appellant introduced additional information1 shortly before the hearing opened. In order to allow the Council sufficient opportunity to comment on this information a further opportunity for comments was made available following the close of the hearing. I have taken account of these additional comments in my decision here.

A supplementary ecological assessment was provided with the appeal and the findings of this led the Council to withdraw its objection to reason 3 of its decision, subject to conditions. These conditions were agreed between the parties prior to the hearing opening and were set out in the Statement of [name] (SoCG). I have discussed these conditions further below but as a matter which was not in contention, I have excluded it from the main issues.

The main issues, therefore, are:

the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, having regard to the location of the site within the Surrey Hills National Landscape (SHNL) and Area of [name] (AGLV), and 1 Documents comprising: Court judgements of New Forest National Park Authority v SSHCLG [2025] EWHC 726 (Admin), Monkhill Ltd v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 1993 (Admin), and (Morris) v Wealden District Council [2014] EWHC 4081 (Admin). Appeal decision ref: 6002301.

whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, including the effect on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt.

The site is located within the SHNL and AGLV wherein policy CSP 21 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008 (TCS) specifies that the character and distinctiveness of the District’s landscapes and countryside will be protected for their own sake, new development will be required to conserve and enhance landscape character. Policy DP7 of the Tandridge District Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014 (TLP) seeks to enhance valuable environmental assets.

The statutory purpose of the National Landscape is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) requires relevant authorities to ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of [name], including National Landscapes. Similarly, paragraph 189 of the Framework requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.

The site is set amongst a small and fairly loose ribbon of linear development that runs along the south side of [site address] and onto [address]. It is formed of a mix of detached houses and outbuildings together with the [name] to the western fringe of this cluster of buildings. Many buildings are set back from the road, particularly along [site address] such that the strongest impression of built development is typically front boundary treatments and driveway entrances. This is most evident at the school where fencing sits along the boundary with the road and along [address] where there is a large stretch of walling. The site itself is comparably screened by a fence although there is, in addition, ample tree coverage to the site frontage. Internally, the site is largely open, albeit somewhat overgrown with ruderal vegetation.

The proposal incorporates the siting of one static caravan, a touring caravan and construction of a day room. These would be located broadly centrally along the width of the site and towards the front near the boundary with the road. The siting and erection of the caravans and day room would, invariably, have an effect upon the special qualities of the SHNL and AGLV. However, due to the small size of these structures and the screening around the site, the effect would be modest.

The appellant has provided an extensive and detailed description of the SHNL and AGLV, particularly relating to this area. It was highlighted that the immediate locale possesses many of the characteristics that contribute to the area’s special qualities and these included hedgerows and meadows amidst a settled landscape. Indeed, the south side of [site address] is a very typical example of such a settled landscape and is set along a traditional country lane; albeit that the line of this, further to the west, has been disrupted due to the M23 and M25 and the imposing junction of the two. It was pointed out that the landscape is a settled one and part of its special quality is this sporadic development.

In this context, the addition of a small form of additional residential development would be unlikely to have a significant effect on the landscape character as a whole. This is further evidenced by the relatively recent decision for stables on this site2. Although this appeal was dismissed, the reason for the refusal of permission was on the grounds of harm to the Green Belt. Indeed, in relation to the effect upon the SHNL and AGLV, the Inspector opined that “the development would not cause unacceptable harm to the natural beauty of the AONB”3.

Conversely, the Council highlighted that the circumstances of the case – a fairly small plot of land set within a ribbon of residential development – are likely to be very common within the SHNL and AGLV. If such forms of development were repeated, there would be a significant change to the special quality of the National Landscape to its wider detriment. Although no specific sites were highlighted by the Council, I have no reason to doubt that this is the case given the wide extent of the SHNL and nature of its settlement. The Council further highlighted the harm that was identified in relation to the appeals at The Plantation, Springbottom Lane4 where it was held that the development of hard surfacing and the siting of caravans were harmful to the SHNL and AGLV.

Nevertheless, despite the likely prevalence of broadly comparable sites to this, there are a number of defining features that mark this site as different. These are that the site is well screened, it is not readily visible in the wider landscape due to its setting amongst a well wooded area and against the backdrop of the M23 and M25. This is, in fact, evidenced by the differing decision in relation to the site at The Plantation on [address] as despite this site’s proximity, it has a discernibly different character. The Inspector, in relation to that appeal, observed that the effects were significant when viewed from further afield and that is not the case here.

As such, given the secluded nature of this proposal, its position within a ribbon of loose residential development amidst a woodland setting, and its context in relation to the major roads that quadrisect the countryside, I find that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance or special qualities of the SHNL and AGLV.

The proposed landscaping, which can be secured by condition, will ameliorate the minor effects of the proposal on the landscape character and ensure that the development does not appear prominent in the wider area. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape and therefore comply with paragraph 189 of the Framework and s85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 as amended by s245 of the LURA.

As such, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance or special landscape quality of the SHNL and AGLV and thus complies with policy CSP21 of the TCS and policy DP7 of the TLP. 2 Council ref: TA/2019/2231, Inspectorate ref: APP/M3645/W/20/3251851 3 National Landscape – formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 4 Council ref: enforcement notices No.1 & No. 2 of 2020, Inspectorate ref: APP/M3645/C/20/3247364 & APP/M3645/C/20/3247456

The appeal site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt wherein most forms of development are inappropriate. Paragraph 142 of the Framework explains that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Policy DP10 of the TLP reiterates this and states that inappropriate development in the Green Belt will only be permitted where very special circumstances exist.

Policy CSP9 of the TCS refers specifically to the provision of Gypsy and Traveller caravan sites. Criterion a) of the policy sets out that unallocated sites within the Green Belt will only be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that very special circumstances exist, these may include the lack of alternative sites within non-green belt locations. It is pertinent to highlight however that this policy did not feature in the Council’s decision notice as a reason for refusing planning permission. Indeed, this policy is not consistent with the Framework insofar as it requires very special circumstances for a form of development which may otherwise comply with elements of the Framework.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out certain exceptions to inappropriate development, however, the appellant confirmed at the hearing that they would not be advancing this proposal as one of these exceptions.

However, the appellant has put forward the proposal under paragraph 155 of the Framework which is where development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate when it meets certain tests. Considering paragraph 155 a. – the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan – the definition given at Annex 2 of the Framework explains that grey belt is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

The parties were in agreement that the site does not strongly contribute to any of those relevant listed purposes under paragraph 143 and this is having regard to the guidance provided in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)5. I agree with this assessment as the proposal would not be adjacent to, or near to, a large built up area such that it could add to sprawl, it does not form part of a gap between towns, and it does not form part of the setting of a historic town.

Nevertheless, the site is within the SHNL and AGLV and it is, thus, an asset listed in footnote 7 of the Framework. As such, finding harm in relation to the effect of the development on the SHNL and AGLV could represent a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

However, as set out above, I have concluded that the proposal would not cause harm to the SHNL and AGLV, subject to conditions. This, therefore, does not amount to a strong reason for refusing or restricting the proposed development and therefore the proposal accords with paragraph 155 a. of the Framework. 5 Paragraph: 005 [name]: 64-005-20250225

Turning to paragraph 155 b. – the proposal should also not be regarded as inappropriate where there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. In this regard, the parties have both highlighted the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) 2024, Tandridge Pitch Delivery Assessment (PDA) and Interim Planning Policy Statement (IPPS) 2025.

The GTAA and PDA identified a 5-year need (over the period 2025-2029) for 81 pitches. The Council claims that 60% of this requirement has already been met and therefore only 33 further pitches, or 40% of the total, are needed in the remaining period to 2029. The appellant disputed these figures, but, for the purposes of my conclusions here, it is not necessary for me to rehearse this in great detail.

This is because, in either parties’ interpretation of the figures, the Council cannot demonstrate a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets. This is a requirement of paragraph 10 a) of the Planning Policy for [name] (PPTS). The Council is reliant upon various measures to meet the outstanding pitch supply and this includes restoring certain gypsy and traveller sites that are not presently being occupied by gypsies and travellers. This may potentially be through the use of injunctions. There is also a certain reliance on windfall sites coming forward in the intervening period including ones put forward by the gypsy and traveller community. In effect these measures are being relied upon to deliver the remaining balance of gypsy and traveller pitches. Whilst these sites are listed in the Council’s evidence, they are not allocated as part of any adopted development plan.

This point is significant as paragraph 10 a) of the PPTS, as set out above, requires such sites to be specific and deliverable (my emphasis). The Council’s evidence did indicate certain specific sites but these, on their own, would not be likely to meet the outstanding pitch requirement under its own assessment. Moreover, as some of these are relying on evicting current residents, who do not conform with the definition at Annex 1 of the PPTS, from sites using legal mechanisms; there is no guarantee that these are deliverable within this time frame. Even if they were deliverable in this time frame, they are existing sites that are simply occupied in breach of planning control and therefore already contribute to the gypsy and traveller pitch supply. Their occupation in an unlawful manner does not alter that they are already in existence. Further, the reliance on windfall sites may render the 81 pitch target reachable but there is no guarantee of this and therefore it, also, cannot meet the test of being specific and deliverable.

As a result, whilst I cannot dispute that the Council has made a positive start in meeting its identified need for gypsy and traveller pitches over the first few years of the 2025-2029 period; this does not equate to this being specific and deliverable as is required by the PPTS.

As a consequence, as, using the Council’s figures, only 60% of pitches can be shown to be delivered or deliverable, there is a demonstrable unmet need for gypsy and traveller pitches within the District. The proposal therefore meets the tests set out at paragraph 155 b. of the Framework as there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed.

Considering paragraph 155 c. the parties were in agreement that the site is in a sustainable location. The site is lacking in terms of public transport provision, there are very limited pedestrian footways in the locality, including directly outside the site, and street lighting is largely absent. However, the site remains in reasonable proximity to the settlements of Merstham and Caterham and, being mindful of paragraph 13 h) of the PPTS, I do find that it is in a reasonably well-connected location. It follows that the site is in a sustainable location and therefore complies with paragraph 155 c. of the Framework.

The Golden Rules are not applicable to this form of development and, therefore, I have not gone on to consider the implications of paragraph 155 d. nor paragraphs 156 to 159. Moreover, as I have found that the development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt under paragraph 155, it is not a requirement for me to go on to consider whether there would be an effect on openness.

In summary, I conclude that the proposal does comply with policy DP10 of the TLP and with the principles laid out in Chapter 13 of the Framework.

In reaching my conclusions here, I have been mindful of the personal circumstances of the appellant. However, as I have found that the proposal would not be harmful to the special qualities of the SHNL and AGLV, and that it should not be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt by reason of meeting the criteria in paragraph 155 of the Framework, it is not necessary for me to go on to consider these personal circumstances further here.

I have also been mindful of the comments of consultees and neighbouring residents. I have explained my reasoning in relation to the effects of the development on the Green Belt and SHNL and AGLV above but note that comments have also been made in relation to neighbours’ living conditions, highway safety, ecological effects and issues of precedent.

The proposal would be for a single residential dwelling and whilst it would be occupied by those with gypsy and traveller status, I have no reason to conclude that this would be substantially different to occupation of the property by any other groups. Access to the site would be onto [site address] and there is adequate visibility and turning space within the site such that vehicles may enter and leave in a forward gear. Matters relating to ecology and biodiversity are addressed in my discussion on conditions below. I do not find that any issues of precedent would arise here as each site is considered on its own merits. Indeed, I have highlighted in my reasoning above, several factors which set this site and its circumstances apart from many others that could be comparable.

Finally, as set out in the preliminary matters, the appellant did introduce late information before the hearing. However, much of this was in the form of well-established case law which the Council would have been required to have regard to in reaching a decision on the application in the first instance. The introduction of the appeal decision relating to [name], Nettlebed,6 was fairly recent and thus it would not have been available to the appellant during standard timescales. Whilst this could have been supplied earlier, it has not altered the balance in reaching my decision here and, in any case, the appellant did not rely on this decision at all at any point during the hearing. 6 6002301

A schedule of conditions was provided within the SoCG and I have imposed these conditions with modifications and edits. These are imposed having regard to paragraphs 56 and 57 of the Framework and advice in the PPG.

A number of the conditions are pre-commencement conditions and therefore I have been mindful of the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Pre-commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018 and [postcode] of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act). As these conditions were listed in the SoCG and agreed by the appellant at the hearing, and have not been modified in this decision, I have taken this to be a substantive response and written agreement to the terms of the proposed pre-commencement conditions.

I have imposed a general time limit as condition 1 in order to comply with the provisions of the Act. Condition 2 is imposed to ensure that the development proceeds in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

Condition 3 restricts occupation of the site to gypsies and travellers only in accordance with the definition at Annex 1 of the PPTS. This condition is required as the under-provision of gypsy and traveller pitches within the District is a reason for granting planning permission for the development here.

Condition 4 restricts the site to no more than one static caravan and touring caravan on the site at any one time. This is because the development is within the Green Belt and SHNL and AGLV and a greater number of pitches or development on the land may well be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and/or the special qualities of the landscape.

Conditions 5 and 6 are imposed to limit the number of commercial vehicles and activities on the site. This is in the interests of the SHNL and AGLV and living conditions of neighbours.

I have required a site development scheme to be provided under condition 7. This is also in the interests of the SHNL and AGLV and living conditions of neighbours. In addition, criterion b) is to ensure maintenance access to the pipeline that crosses part of site.

Conditions 8 to 12 (inclusive) and 15 relating to trees, means of enclosure, illumination and generators are imposed in the interests SHNL and AGLV and the living conditions of neighbours.

Conditions 13 and 14 are in order to ensure that the development has safe access in the interests of highway safety.

Condition 16 is to ensure that access remains available to the operator of the pipeline that crosses part of the site and to ensure that no development occurs that could affect the pipeline.

Conditions 17 to 21 are imposed having regard to ecological and biodiversity interests of the site and in order to ensure the development is not detrimental to them.

A condition restricting domestic works that could be constructed with deemed planning permission, as permitted development, was discussed at the hearing. However, no such permitted development rights exist for caravans and therefore such a restriction is not necessary. As already discussed in relation to condition 9, fences or other means of enclosure are already restricted in this permission.

Whilst it was discussed at the hearing, I have not imposed a personal permission that restricts the occupation of the site to the appellant only. This is because I have found that their personal circumstances need not be weighed in any planning balance as the development accords with the development plan on its own merits.

The proposed development complies with paragraph 155 of the Framework insofar as it would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Moreover, the proposal would not cause harm to the special qualities of the SHNL and AGLV.

The proposal therefore complies with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with plan nos. 400 [name], 500 [name], 501 [name], 1050.

The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers, defined as persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, and all other persons with a cultural tradition of nomadism or of living in a caravan, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or circus people travelling together as such, in accordance with Planning Policy for [name] or replacement planning policy or guidance.

There shall be no more than 1 pitch on the site, and no more than 1 single unit static caravan and 1 touring caravan, as defined in the [name] and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan sites Act 1968, as amended, stationed on the site at any one time.

No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes, shall be stationed, parked or stored on this site and there shall be a maximum of one commercial vehicle per pitch.

No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of materials.

Prior to commencement of development a ‘site development scheme’ shall be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority and shall include details of: a) The internal layout of the site, including the layout of caravans, vehicular access, hard surfacing, defined parking and turning spaces within the site, amenity areas and refuse storage and collection areas; b) the secure fencing off, and maintenance of vehicular access to, those parts of the application site occupied by the electricity sub-station and oil pipeline, and measures to ensure that no construction activity or storage of materials occurs on these areas of the site; c) the means of foul and surface water drainage of the site, and means of emptying any foul water storage tanks; d) proposed lighting on the boundary of and within the site; e) finished ground levels and all surfacing materials; f) all proposed means of enclosure; g) all hard and soft landscaping of the site, including trees, hedgerows and shrubs to be retained, and new tree, shrub and hedgerow planting with details of species, plant sizes and proposed numbers and densities for the new planting; for each pitch created on the site; h) a timetable for its implementation. Upon approval the site development scheme shall be carried out as approved, unless any variations are first approved in writing by the local planning authority.

At the same time as the site development scheme required by condition 7 above is submitted to the local planning authority there shall be submitted a schedule of maintenance for a period of 5 years of the existing and new planting beginning at the completion of the final phase of implementation as required by that condition. The schedule shall make provision for the replacement, in the same position, of any tree, hedge or shrub that is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies within 5 years of planting or which, becomes seriously damaged or defective, with another of the same species and size as that originally planted. The maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any other order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modifications), no fences or other means of enclosure other than those approved under condition 7 above shall be erected on the site unless details of their size, materials and location shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No means of external illumination other than that approved under condition 7 above unless details of it have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Demolition or construction works on the site shall not take place outside 0800hrs and 1800hrs Monday to Friday, 0800hrs and 1300hrs on Saturdays or at any time on Sundays of public holidays.

No generators shall be used on the land.

The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans for vehicles to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. Thereafter the parking/turning areas shall be retained and maintained for their designated purpose.

No part of the development shall be first occupied unless and until the proposed access to [site address] has been constructed and provided with visibility zones commensurate with the posted speed limit in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction over 0.6m high.

No development shall take place in any phase until a scheme for the protection of the retained trees, in accordance with BS 5837:2012, including a Tree Protection Plan(s) (TPP) and an [name] (AMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Specific issues to be dealt with in the TPP and AMS: a) Location and installation of services/ utilities/ drainage. b) Details of construction within the RPA or that may impact on the retained trees. c) A full specification for the installation of boundary treatment works. d) A full specification for the construction of any roads, parking areas and driveways, including details of the no-dig specification and extent of the areas of the roads, parking areas and driveways to be constructed using a no-dig specification. Details shall include relevant sections through them. e) Detailed levels and cross-sections to show that the raised levels of surfacing, where the installation of no-dig surfacing within [name] is proposed, demonstrating that they can be accommodated where they meet with any adjacent building damp proof courses. f) A specification for protective fencing to safeguard trees during both demolition and construction phases and a plan indicating the alignment of the protective fencing. g) A specification for scaffolding and ground protection within tree protection zones. h) Tree protection during construction indicated on a TPP and construction and construction activities clearly identified as prohibited in this area. i) Details of site access, temporary parking, on site welfare facilities, loading, unloading, and storage of equipment, materials, fuels and waste as well concrete mixing and use of fires. j) Methodology and detailed assessment of root pruning. k) A schedule of arboricultural supervision and monitoring of activities within any RPA which is identified within the AMS. Details of such visits to be recorded and submitted to the Local Planning Authority within one month of completion of development. l) Methods to improve the rooting environment for retained and proposed trees and landscaping. Thereafter, development shall be carried out in full accordance with the details approved.

Access to the electricity substation and oil pipeline shall be made available to the relevant statutory undertaker at any time. No development over the route of the pipeline shall take place and the route shall be kept clear at all times.

No development (including ground works, vegetation clearance or site clearance) shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include: a) Risk assessment of construction activities b) Identification of biodiversity protection zones c) Practical measures to avoid/reduce impacts (method statements) d) Timing of works to avoid ecological harm e) Ecological supervision requirements f) Responsible persons and communication lines g) Role of [name] of Works (ECoW) h) Protective fencing, exclusion barriers and signage The approved CEMP shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

No development, including site clearance or vegetation removal, shall take place during the bird nesting season (1st March to 31st August inclusive) unless it has first been demonstrated that nesting birds are absent. If works are required within this period, a method statement for the protection of nesting birds shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of such works. The method statement shall be implemented as approved for the duration of the works.

No development (including site clearance) shall commence until an [name] and Enhancement Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall: a) Be informed by the approved [name] b) Include the location, specification and timing of mitigation and enhancement measures (including, but not limited to, bat boxes, bird boxes and hedgehog connectivity features) c) Be shown on all relevant site plans and elevations The approved mitigation and enhancement measures shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation and retained thereafter.

Prior to commencement of development, a [name] and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The HMMP shall include: a) An updated habitat plan identifying retained and created habitats b) Long-term aims and objectives for habitats and species c) Detailed management prescriptions (including timing, frequency and methods) d) Management of boundary features including hedgerows, woodland and scrub e) A monitoring strategy including measurable targets f) Reporting, review and remedial measures g) An implementation timetable and identification of responsible persons h) The HMMP shall provide for a minimum period of 30 years of management. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved HMMP.

The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced unless a Biodiversity Gain Plan has been approved by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the statutory requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan. End of Schedule Appearances For the appellant: [appellant] of Counsel, [name] [name] (Hons) [name], [name], ET Planning [name], [name], Collington Winter Environmental [name], Director, Scarp [name], appellant [name] the Council: [name](Hons) [name], Planning Advisor to Tandridge District Council Interested persons: [name]