Appeal 6004026

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of their appeal submission, the appellant refers to a proposed amendment to the scheme to relocate and increase the number of parking spaces, albeit revised plans have not been formally submitted. For the avoidance of doubt, I have, therefore, considered the appeal based on the plans submitted to the Council with the planning application.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; • whether the proposed development would be suitably located having regard to the accessibility of services and facilities; • whether the proposed development makes adequate provision for parking; • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt where Policy DP10 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014-2029 (adopted 2014) (the LPP2) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) place strict control over inappropriate development.

The Framework establishes that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and within paragraph 143 the five purposes of the Green Belt are set out. Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework list the types of development which are not regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt.

The exception outlined in paragraph 154g) allows for the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL), including a material change of use to residential, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Policy DP13 of the LPP2 similarly allows for the redevelopment of PDL, albeit where the proposal would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development. This wording reflects a now superseded iteration of the Framework.

The Framework defines PDL as land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed area. The definition excludes, among other things, land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape.

The site has previously been occupied by a permanent structure, namely a dwelling known as [address]. However, that dwelling was removed from the site in accordance with a condition attached to the planning permission granted in 2003 for a replacement dwelling in a different location, now known as [address] (reference 2003/648). The appellant alleges that a scheme for the restoration of the site was never submitted to the Council for approval. Nonetheless, it is evident from the information before me, including an aerial photograph dating from 2005, that the structure was removed from the site some time ago.

I observed during my site visit that, even though the site has largely returned to grassland, there are some limited remains of the previous dwelling present. Nevertheless, visibility of the remains, which do not extend above ground-level, is highly limited, particularly when viewed from outside of the site. In this regard, the remains of the previous structure have blended into the landscape.

On this basis, the site does not meet the definition of PDL within the Framework. Accordingly, I do not need to consider the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt to conclude that the proposal would not meet the exception in paragraph 154g) of the Framework. As such, the scale of increase in volume compared to the dwelling previously located on the site and any consequent effects on openness are not determinative in this case.

I acknowledge that my finding differs from the pre-application advice provided by the Council in 2025. Nonetheless, that advice did not constitute a formal decision. Moreover, I must make my assessment based on the information before me and, as I have explained above, this leads me to conclude that the site does not meet the definition of PDL. The pre-application advice provided by the Council in 2025 does not, therefore, lead me to an alternative conclusion on this matter.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework sets out that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where 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; b. there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; c. the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework; and d. where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘[name] requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157. As the development proposed does not constitute major development, criterion d. is not applicable in this case.

The Framework defines grey belt 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) of the Green Belt, as set out in paragraph 143 of the Framework, and that is not subject to any of the restrictions in footnote 7 of the Framework. I have concluded above that, on the basis of the evidence before me, the site does not meet the definition of PDL. Nevertheless, the parties agree that the site does not strongly contribute to purposes a), b) or d) of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 143 of the Framework. As no footnote 7 restrictions are applicable, the site constitutes grey belt land.

Given the modest scale of development proposed and extent of Green Belt which would be affected by the proposal, relative to the quantum of Green Belt across the District, the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area. In this regard, the proposal is consistent with criterion a. of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

The Council confirms that it is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and that criterion b. of paragraph 155 is, therefore, complied with. I see no reason to disagree.

In respect of criterion c., paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework make clear that significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes, and that it should be ensured that sustainable transport modes are prioritised, taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location. The proposal for a single dwelling would not constitute a significant development in terms of the Framework but this does not obviate the need for the location to be sustainable when applying Framework paragraph 155.

The appeal site is undisputably located in the countryside. To access services and facilities, future occupiers of the proposed development would be required to travel outside of the immediate vicinity of the site. The appellant has put to me that bus stops on [address] would enable access via public transport to the commercial, retail, educational, leisure and recreational opportunities provided within settlements including [name] and [name] as well as school buses to Oxted and Redhill.

However, to reach the bus stops, individuals would need to proceed along [site address] which does not have footpaths or street lighting and includes stretches with limited natural surveillance. This route would be particularly undesirable in winter months, after dusk or during poor weather, even if [site address] is a lightly trafficked private road wide enough for 2 cars to pass each other. Beyond [site address] , access would require traversing [address] and [address], the latter of which I observed during my site visit to be relatively heavily trafficked with no crossing facilities. As such, irrespective of the distance to the bus stops, I find that the route would be unsatisfactory for pedestrians and cyclists.

Paragraph 110 acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Paragraph 117 emphasises that developments should facilitate access to high quality public transport so far as possible. Nevertheless, in the context of the above, occupiers of the proposed development would be highly reliant on the use of private vehicles to access most services and facilities and to meet their day-to-day needs due to a lack of satisfactory walking and cycling routes.

As such, based on the evidence before me, the appeal site is not within a location which is, or can be made, sustainable. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to paragraph 155c.

Taking all of the above into account, the proposal would fail to satisfy all of the criteria set out in paragraph 155 of the Framework. Consequently, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies DP10 and DP13 of the LPP2.

Refusal reason 1 on the Council’s decision notice also refers to Policy CSP9 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (adopted 2008) (the CS). However, this policy relates to the provision of gypsy and traveller caravan sites which is not a matter in dispute between the parties. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy CSP9 in relation to this main issue.

The construction of a dwelling on the site would result in built development where is there is presently none above ground-level. Although the footprint of the dwelling would be relatively modest, its bulk would, in combination with associated domestic paraphernalia, inevitably lead to a loss of spatial and visual openness. This is particularly the case as, even though there is sporadic development along the northern spur of [site address] , the site currently forms part of an open vista visible from [site address] .

Moreover, as the site forms part of the countryside, the development would lead to encroachment of development into the countryside. It would, therefore, be contrary to purpose c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment as set out in paragraph 143 of the Framework.

Consequently, the proposal would result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Given the scale of proposal, the harm would be limited in extent. Nevertheless, it adds to the harm arising from inappropriateness. In accordance with paragraph 153 of the Framework, the totality of the harm to the Green Belt attracts substantial weight.

[name] have explained above, the appeal site is located within the countryside. It is remote from services and facilities and due to a lack of satisfactory walking and cycling routes, future occupiers of the development would be highly reliant on the use of private vehicles to access most services and facilities and to meet their day-to-day needs.

My attention has been drawn to a site at [address], which is located close to the appeal site, where the Council granted permission for the demolition of an agricultural barn and erection of 2 dwellings (reference 2021/1900). [address] is also accessed via [site address] , although located further from [address] and its bus stops. While permission was granted, it is evident from the [name] for that application that the site was not considered to be an ideal location in sustainable transport terms for new residential use. Indeed, the findings of the County Highway Authority were broadly consistent with their response to the appeal scheme and my findings set out above.

However, in the [address] case, prior approval had previously been granted for the conversion of the barn into dwellings and officers afforded weight to the likelihood of prior approval being granted again were a new application to be submitted. The proposal was also considered in the context of policies which permit the conversion and re-use of buildings in the Green Belt, irrespective of locational and transport policies, and the other existing and approved dwellings at [address]. The conclusion reached in terms of sustainability in its wider sense reflected these matters. Even though the proposal was considered against transport-related elements of the Framework which remain broadly unchanged, the case was, therefore, inherently different to the appeal scheme which proposes new, rather than replacement, built form.

In any event, each case must be determined on its own individual circumstances. I have reasoned above why future occupiers of the proposed development would be highly reliant on the use of private vehicles and that, consequently, the site is not suitably located with regard to access to services and facilities. This is irrespective of whether the proposal would be sustainable in any other sense. As such, the Council’s findings in relation to [address] do not, ultimately, lead me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not be suitably located having regard to the accessibility of services and facilities. As such, it would not accord with the relevant provisions of Policy DP5 of the LPP2. Among other things, this policy seeks development which promotes access by public transport, foot and bicycle.

The Council’s Tandridge Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2012) requires that 2-bedroom dwellings provide 2 off-street parking spaces. The proposed development would provide one off-street parking space, a shortfall of one space. Such a shortfall would increase pressure for on-street parking. Additional on-street parking would likely cause obstruction and inconvenience to other road users. This is irrespective of the ownership of the highway adjacent to the appeal site.

The appellant suggests that 2 parking spaces could be accommodated on the site and proposes that an alternative parking arrangement achieving this could be secured by condition. However, limited details of the proposed alternative arrangement have been provided, with only a plan indicating an area broadly of sufficient size to accommodate 2 spaces before me. Although the appellant suggests that this arrangement would provide sufficient space for cars to enter and leave in forward gear, this has not been demonstrated. In this context, I do not consider that a condition would satisfactorily overcome this matter as there is no certainty that the proposed alternative arrangement would provide an acceptable solution.

Moreover, the proposed amended parking layout would materially alter the proposal. It would result in parking being provided immediately adjacent to windows serving a habitable room within the proposed dwelling, to the detriment of the living conditions of future occupiers. It would also result in additional hard surfacing, reducing the landscaping to be provided as part of the development. Given that the amended parking layout would amount to more than a minor modification of the scheme, the use of a condition would not, in accordance with paragraph 012 of the Planning Practice Guidance, be appropriate.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development does not make adequate provision for parking. In this regard, it is contrary to the relevant provisions of Policy CSP12 of the CS and Policies DP5 and DP7 of the LPP2. Among other things, these policies seek development which has regard to vehicle parking standards and does not result in additional on-street parking where this would cause congestion or harm to amenity or highway safety.

Notwithstanding my findings above in relation to accessibility to services and facilities, [site address] is a lightly trafficked, hard-surfaced bridleway wide enough to allow 2 cars to pass each other. The road has a 20mph speed limit, traffic calming measures, verges and a layout which allows for good forward visibility of oncoming traffic. In this context, and given that the proposed 2-bedroom dwelling is likely to generate only a limited number of walking and cycling trips, I do not consider that the proposal is likely to result in a significant increase in the potential for conflict between road users. Indeed, there is no substantive evidence before me which demonstrates that the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on highway safety. As such, it would accord with the relevant provisions of Policy DP5 of the LPP2 which seeks, among other things, the provision of safe and suitable access to sites which is achievable by all.

The proposed development would contribute towards the supply of housing in a District where there is an acknowledged shortfall which the appellant suggests the Council’s Interim Policy Statement for [name] (2022) is not being effective in addressing. It would also provide an opportunity for a self-build dwelling. The benefits of housing delivery attract significant weight, particularly given the scale of the shortfall. However, the limited scale of the development tempers the weight I can attach to the benefits associated with a single dwelling.

[name] have explained above, I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework sets out that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances (VSC). Paragraph 153 specifies that VSC will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The proposal would harm the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The proposal would also not be suitably located having regard to the accessibility of services and facilities and would not make adequate provision for parking. The moderate benefits which would accrue from the provision of one new self-build dwelling are not considerations that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm associated with the proposal. The VSC required to justify the proposal do not, therefore, exist.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, with the appellant indicating that supply stands at 1.92 years based on the Council’s Authority Monitoring Report (2024). Consequently, paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged. However, paragraph 11d)i. establishes that this applies unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Footnote 7 of the Framework identifies policies which provide a strong reason for refusing development, including those relating to the Green Belt. I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that it would cause harm to its openness. In the absence of VSC, this constitutes a strong reason for refusing the proposal and, therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case.

In conclusion, for the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.