Appeal 6004522

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of the existing public house ([name]) and erection of two three-bedroom and two four-bedroom dwellings (Use Class C3) forming access off [site address] , with associated parking and hard and soft landscaping, at [site address] , [site address] , Tandridge, Surrey [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/342, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by Brickmakers Developments Ltd against Tandridge District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appellant has submitted additional information with the appeal including a highways technical note and revised visibility splays. What is considered at appeal should be essentially the same scheme that was considered by the local planning authority. I am satisfied that the additional report does not result in a substantially different scheme to that originally considered and that no party has been prejudiced giving rise to any procedural unfairness. I therefore proceed to determine the appeal on the updated documents.

The reasons for refusal include references to the Surrey Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4). The LTP4 is a material consideration in the assessment of the appeal, but the Council has clarified it does not form part of the adopted development plan.

The main issues are:  whether the site is a suitable location for the appeal proposal having regard to the Council’s strategy for the location of development and access to services and facilities;  the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and,  the effect of the appeal proposal on highway safety with particular regard to access and quantum of parking.

Policy CSP1 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy adopted 2008 ([name]) states that development will take place within the existing built-up areas of the district and be located where there is a choice of transport modes available, and where the distance to travel to services is minimised. This is said to be delivered with the aim of promoting sustainable patterns of travel and to make the best use of previously developed land. The appeal site is not located within any of the ‘built up areas’ as defined by the policy. Although this policy has not been expressly referred to in the reason for refusal, it has been referred to in evidence and is relevant to the consideration of the location of development.

Policy DP5A.4 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014-2029 (Local Plan) requires safe and suitable access to development, with access by public transport, foot and bicycle to nearby residential, commercial, retail, educational, leisure and recreational areas where appropriate. The LTP4 is also a material consideration, insofar as it seeks to reduce the need to travel, along with supporting a shift to more sustainable modes away from car use.

The County highway authority has objected to the proposal in terms of its pedestrian and cycle accessibility, along with poor access to public transport services. The appeal site located close to other dwellings and commercial uses; residential development in this location would not be physically isolated. There is no footway or street lighting on [site address] and walking along here to access facilities in other villages would be an unrealistic and unsafe prospect. Although there is a footway on [address] immediately opposite the site, there are no genuinely essential services for everyday living located along this road.

My attention has been drawn to a Public Right of Way (PRoW) located adjacent to the appeal site, running alongside the railway line to [name]. The path is a rural footpath. Whilst it is relatively level, it is unlit and uneven and would not be suitable for those with buggies, wheelchairs or mobility aids. The footpath meets the A22, where one would need to cross the road to get to the footway into the village. There are some limited facilities in the village including a petrol station/convenience shop, church and restaurant. There is a primary school in [name], though I consider it would be unrealistic to walk with small children via the PRoW given the distance and condition of the path. There are also train and bus services from the village.

The appeal scheme contains cycle storage. Local services would be reasonably accessible by bike, but realistically only for more confident cyclists owing to the narrow rural roads.

Whilst access to a small range of facilities would be possible by walking or cycling, the routes would not be suitable for all. In conclusion, the appeal site would not be well located for residents to access day-to-day services and facilities other than by car. This would undermine the aims of Local Plan Policy DP5A.4 and Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008 ([name]) Policy CSP1 insofar as they set out the strategy for the location of development and require development to be accessible via public transport, walking and cycling.

The appeal site is located at the junction of [site address] and [address]. [site address] is rural in character, punctuated by sporadic clusters of dwellings. There is a dwelling directly to the south of the appeal site. [address], towards its junction with [site address] , contains residential buildings lining either side of the street. The density and pattern of development along [address] is varied and includes terraces, semi-detached and detached dwellings. Plot sizes are also variable.

The proposal would comprise four detached two storey dwellings fronting [site address] . Although the proposed plot sizes would be relatively modest, the density and pattern of development would be consistent with the range of development lining [address]. Consequently, the proposal would be consistent with the density aspirations of Core Strategy Policy CSP19.

[name] note the Council’s view that the proposal would be a cramped form of development, the dwellings themselves would not be set any further towards the highway than the existing building and would also have a similar ridge height to the existing building. The detached nature of the housing would allow views between the dwellings, breaking up the overall mass of built form. There is no development plan policy requirement with respect to minimum garden size. Although relatively modest, the size and configuration of the gardens would provide private, useable amenity space with sufficient space for sitting out, drying washing and other domestic functions.

The traditional materials including red brick and dark stained timber weatherboarding would be appropriate to the area; there is no dispute between the main parties regarding detailed design.

In conclusion on this main issue therefore, I find that the appeal proposal would be consistent with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would be in line with the aims of Local Plan Policy DP7 and [name] CSP18 and CSP19. Taken together and amongst other things, these policies state that development should integrate effectively with its surroundings, reflect and respect character, setting and local context and fall within stated density ranges.

The existing car park access would be retained. The trip profile and peak use of the access would change as a result of the proposal, with more intense use of the access during morning peak hours compared with the former [address] (PH). The overall number of trips to and from the site would however be significantly reduced compared to the PH. The methodology for quantifying the projected number of trips arising from the proposed residential use is derived from a standard industry database (TRICS), and there is no compelling evidence before me which would lead me to draw any different conclusion. I note the highway authority’s view that as the former PH would be highly unlikely to re-open, then the use of this as a comparator for trip generation is flawed. Nevertheless, this likelihood of it reopening does not alter the lawful use of the site and it remains the last use to operate from the site. I consider it a reasonable basis on which to compare trip generation.

The speed survey evidence provided with the appeal shows the 85th percentile speed southbound is 35.1mph and northbound is 32.7mph. Using the guidance in the Manual for Streets, the proposed visibility splays correspond to 43m north and 48m south. The highway authority confirm that these sightlines should be achievable, subject to the vegetation either side of the access being kept to below 0.6m.

Taking the above factors into account, the evidence does not lead me to conclude that there would be demonstrable harm to highway safety arising from the proposed vehicular access arrangements.

The Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (the SPD) sets out residential parking requirements. These equate to 2 spaces per 3-bedroom dwelling, and 3 spaces per 4+ bedroom dwelling, with 1 additional unallocated space per 4 dwellings. The scheme would provide a total of 10 parking spaces, which would not allow for the single additional unallocated space encouraged by the SPD.

The Council do not consider there would be sufficient on-street parking available to enable the additional requirement to be accommodated along [address] where on-street parking is not restricted. There is no compelling evidence before me to indicate that there would be insufficient on-street parking capacity, and I have no reason to conclude that there would be unacceptable harm arising to highway safety as a consequence of the proposed parking arrangements.

I conclude therefore that the proposal would not be harmful to highway safety, and would be in line with the aims of Local Plan Policy DP5A.1, 2 and 4, along with the broad aims of the LTP4. Taken together, these require compliance with the relevant highway authority design guidance, require schemes to not unnecessarily impede the free flow of traffic, create hazards to other road users, and provide safe and suitable access to the site.

The Council concur with the appellant that the use of the building as a PH is unviable. The evidence does not lead me to disagree. Nevertheless, the PH is a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). The building is described by the Council as having high significance as an early building in Tandridge Parish. The earliest part of the building dating from c1500, having been gradually extended over time. It is however in very poor condition following the fire and extended period of exposure to the elements. I consider the significance of the NDHA to be derived from its age and simplicity of built form, consistent with the building’s historic function as a PH.

Whilst not having the same level of heritage significance as those included on the statutory list, the building as a NDHA nevertheless forms part of the district’s historic environment. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the effect of an application on the significance of a NDHA should be taken into account in determining the application, and a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset; this is undertaken in the overall planning balance section.

The Council consider the proposal to not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt, under Framework paragraph 154g. I agree with this assessment, and I am satisfied that there would not be substantial harm to openness arising from the proposal.

[address] and its garden share a boundary with the appeal site to the south and west. There would be sufficient separation between [address] and the proposed dwellings to safeguard the living conditions of the cottage with regard to outlook, privacy and light.

The standard of accommodation proposed in relation to layout and floorspace would comply with the [name]. The accommodation would include cycle and bin storage.

I am satisfied that in relation to its effect upon trees, biodiversity, air quality, archaeology, flood risk and drainage that the proposal would be acceptable subject to appropriate conditions. I have taken account of comments made by interested parties in respect of these matters; however, I do not have compelling evidence before me to contradict the conclusions of the Council in this respect.

The site would be subject to the provisions of [name] (BNG) pursuant to Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act), which was inserted by the Environment Act 2021. The appeal proposal is required to demonstrate 10% BNG in mitigation.

The arrangements for the maintenance of a transformer on neighbouring land is a civil matter.

My attention has been drawn to 2 recent appeal decisions which the Council considers as relevant to this appeal. The decisions at Chedworth (reference APP/M3645/W/25/3371822) and [address] (APP/M3645/W/25/3364704) both considered the location of development, amongst other things. It was held that there were no very special circumstances to justify development in the Green Belt for both sites, and the weight that the Inspectors attached to benefits and harms in the final planning balance in each appeal are highly site specific and a matter of planning judgement. These decisions are therefore of little influence in my assessment of this appeal, which I have determined having regard to its own merits.

The delivery of 4 family sized homes would be a social benefit and would contribute to the Council’s housing supply, with a net gain of 3 dwellings. The appeal proposal would be an efficient use previously developed land, for which there is support within the Framework. Small developments can be built out quickly and present the opportunity to make a meaningful, immediate difference to housing land supply. There would be socio-economic benefits arising from construction and subsequent local spend from new residents. Some ecological enhancements would also be delivered. Taken together, these benefits attract significant weight in favour of the appeal scheme.

I consider the loss of the NDHA to be a disbenefit to the scheme, to which I attach moderate weight in the planning balance. The acceptability of the proposal in relation to the design and standard of accommodation, highway safety, living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, archaeology, drainage, biodiversity and trees holds neutral weight.

I have identified harm arising from the conflict with the spatial strategy with particular regard to access to services and facilities by means other than private car. This harm is, to a limited degree, offset by the fact that for some, the services and facilities of [name] would be accessible by walking or cycling.

The Council acknowledges that it is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the Council’s committee report confirming a supply equivalent to 1.92 years. This is a substantial shortfall, indicating that the need for housing is pressing.

In these circumstances paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework is applicable. Footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed out-of-date. Consequently, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard for key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The Framework aims to achieve sustainable travel and prioritises pedestrian and cycle movements. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities; in this case the proposed development would not be isolated and could contribute to the vitality of nearby communities. Paragraph 110 of the Framework acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Consequently, I consider that insofar as they relate to the location of development, the conflict between the appeal proposal and Policies DP5 and CSP1 should be given moderate weight.

Drawing the above matters together, the benefits of the scheme attract significant weight. The harms and conflict with the development plan collectively weigh moderately against the proposal. The adverse impacts of the scheme would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development applies and this indicates that permission should be granted.

The Council has provided some suggested conditions which I have considered against advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Consequently, I have amended or omitted some of the suggested wording. Conditions 3 to 10 inclusive are pre-commencement conditions to which the appellant has agreed.

I have attached the standard commencement time limit condition and plans condition (1 and 2) as this provides clarity. Condition 3 requires the submission of a construction management statement and is necessary to maintain highway and pedestrian safety and safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents. Condition 4 is necessary to ensure any contamination on site is identified and treated so that it does not harm anyone who uses the site in the future.

Condition 5 is necessary in the interests of heritage. I have also added a condition (6) requiring the submission of details of the timing of the construction following demolition. This is necessary in the interests of the NDHA which should only be demolished as part of an overall scheme of redevelopment which would deliver the benefits outlined in this decision. The condition is worded to allow some flexibility in terms of how it is satisfied, which could be, for example, through the submission of demolition and construction contracts or phasing plan.

Condition 7 is necessary in the interests of ensuring suitable on-site drainage; conditions 8, 9 and 14 are necessary in the interests of biodiversity. Condition 10 is necessary to protect trees in and around the appeal site. Conditions 11 and 12 are required to ensure the scheme has an appropriate appearance. Condition 13 is necessary in the interests of sustainability. Conditions 15 and 16 are necessary in the interests of highway safety.

The effect of paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) is that planning permission granted for development of land in England is deemed to have been granted subject to the [name] (BGC), which states that development may not begin unless: (a) a biodiversity gain plan (BGP) has been submitted to the planning authority, and (b) the planning authority has approved the plan. The planning authority, for the purposes of determining whether to approve a BGP if one is required in respect of this permission would be Tandridge District Council.

Based on the information available, this permission is considered to be one which will require the approval of a BGP before development is begun because none of the statutory exemptions or transitional arrangements are considered to apply. Because the BGC has a separate statutory basis as a planning condition, it is not necessary for me to include it within the schedule of conditions on this decision.

I have not attached the Council’s suggested conditions which would remove permitted development rights under [name], AA and E of Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO).

The Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is a clear justification to do so. The Planning Practice Guidance (paragraph reference 21a-[phone]) (PPG) states that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights may not pass the tests of reasonableness or necessity. Furthermore, it advises that area-wide or blanket removal of freedoms to carry out small scale domestic alterations, which would otherwise not require an application for planning permission, are unlikely to meet the tests of reasonableness and necessity.

The GPDO does not make any concessions for Green Belt land in its allowances for domestic extensions and alterations, and permitted development is subject to controls regarding scale and appearance within the GPDO itself. I do not consider that there is clear justification in this case to restrict domestic permitted development rights for [name] and E pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO. In any event, extensions proposed under Class AA would necessarily be subject to an application to the local planning authority for prior approval.

Whilst not included within the suggested list of conditions submitted by the Council, the highway authority suggest the provision of various highway improvements including a new pedestrian crossing to the A22 and resurfacing of the PRoW. Given my conclusions on highway safety and bearing in mind the small scale of the scheme, I do not find that these off-site works would be necessary to make the development acceptable, or sufficiently related in scale and kind. They would not meet the tests set out in Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. 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 drawing numbers: 24.4551.100 rev P2; 24.4551.102 rev P3; 24.4551.103 rev P3; 24.4551.101 rev P8.

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a [name] has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall provide for: i. the proposed route for access to the site by plant, operatives and delivery vehicles; ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii. parking for construction workers and visitors; iv. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; v. wheel washing facilities and measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vi. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; vii. delivery, demolition and construction working hours. The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

No development shall take place until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination, carried out in accordance with [name] 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency‚ [name] (LCRM) (or equivalent [name] and [name] if replaced), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If any contamination is found, no development shall take place until: i. a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; ii. the site has been remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale; and iii. a verification report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended until: iv. additional measures for the remediation of the site have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and v. a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

No development, including demolition, shall take place until a programme of Building Recording to be conducted in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include producing a record of the building by including a written, drawn and photographic survey and shall be undertaken by suitably qualified archaeologists.

No demolition shall take place until arrangements have been put in place to secure the implementation of the development approved under this permission and details of these arrangements (for example demolition and construction contracts and/or phasing plan) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The arrangements shall include details of the timescale for carrying out the development approved under this permission.

No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. a. The submitted details shall: i. provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii. include a timetable for its implementation; and, iii. provide, a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. b. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The sustainable drainage system shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan.

Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved a bat precautionary working method statement prepared by a suitably experienced ecologist shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, an Ecological Enhancement Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Ecological Enhancement Plan should be based on impact avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures specified in the final ecological report and should include, but not be limited to the following: i. Description and evaluation of features to be provided, ii. Location plan of all ecological enhancement features, iii. Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management, iv. Prescriptions for management actions, v. Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures, vi. Features for hedgehogs as integral design features, vii. Bat roosting opportunities as integral design features, viii. Features for breeding birds, including swifts, as integral design features, ix. Safeguarding of terrestrial mammals. The scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

Notwithstanding the details submitted, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including site clearance) an arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan (full details for the protection of existing trees and hedgerows in accordance with BS5837) shall be submitted and approved by the local planning authority. Thereafter, any specified measures shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include the following: • a full survey of all trees on site and those within influencing distance on • adjacent sites in accordance with BS5837, with tree works proposals. All trees must be plotted on a site plan, clearly and accurately depicting trunk locations, root protection areas and canopy spreads. • A plan detailing all trees and hedgerows planned for retention and removal. • A schedule of tree works for all the retained trees specifying pruning and other remedial or preventative work, whether for physiological, hazard abatement, aesthetic or operational reasons. All tree works shall be carried out in accordance with BS 3998. • Site specific hard surface removal specifications • Site specific construction specifications to include installation of underground services and drainage, no dig surfacing, level changes. • A Tree protection plan in accordance with BS5837 detailing all methods of protection, including but not restricted to: locations of construction exclusion zones, root protection areas, fit for purpose fencing and ground protection, service routes and drainage, works access space, machinery/waste storage and permanent/temporary hard surfaces. All tree protection methods detailed in the approved arboricultural method statement shall not be moved or removed, temporarily or otherwise, until all works including external works have been completed and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site.

No construction above slab level shall take place until details (manufacturer’s name, product name, and photographs) of the external facing materials to be used for the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be constructed using the approved materials and maintained as such thereafter.

No construction above slab level shall take place until details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include: i. A planting specification, implementation details and a 5-year landscape management plan; ii. Boundary treatments, including trees and hedges to the perimeter of the site providing gaps at ground level to allow the passage of wildlife; iii. Details of biodiversity enhancements; iv. Hard surfacing materials; v. A timetable for implementation of the hard and soft landscaping. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the approved timetable prior to first occupation of any dwelling. Any seeding or turfing which fails to establish or any trees or plants which, within five years from the first use of the dwellings die or become so seriously damaged or diseased that their long-term amenity value has been adversely affected shall be replaced in the next planting season with plants of the same species and size as detailed in the approved landscape scheme.

No construction above slab level shall take place until details demonstrating how the development would satisfy a 10% reduction of carbon emissions through renewable sources have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The renewable energy provision shall thereafter be implemented prior to the occupation of the dwellings and retained in accordance with the approved details.

Any external lighting installed on the site (whether permanent or temporary) shall be in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include measures to shield and direct light from the light sources so as to prevent light pollution, and illuminance and illuminance contour plots covering sensitive neighbouring receptors. The details will demonstrate that areas to be lit will not disturb bat activity. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained as such thereafter.

The parking area shown on plan no. 24.4551.101.P8 shall be retained for the parking of vehicles and shall not be used for any other purpose. The parking spaces shall be used solely for the benefit of the occupants of the dwelling of which it forms part and shall be permanently retained as such.

The 2.4m x 43m and 2.4m x 48m visibility splays shown on plan no. VS03 (appendix C of [name] by TPA dated January 2026) shall be provided prior to first occupation of any dwelling, shall be free of any obstruction exceeding 0.6m in height, and shall be retained as such thereafter.