Appeal 6006026

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the postcode in the banner heading from the decision notice as the application form did not provide it.

The appeal was accompanied by a deed of unilateral undertaking under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to the purchase of habitat units and electric bicycle vouchers. I have addressed the implications of the deed in the relevant sections below. The appeal was also accompanied by a transport technical note.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the appeal site is grey belt land and whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • if inappropriate, the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; • whether the appeal site would be accessible by sustainable modes of transport; • the effect of the proposal on highway safety; • whether the proposal satisfies the requirement for biodiversity net gain; • if inappropriate, whether the 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 development plan and accompanying policies map identify the appeal site as lying within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework further establishes that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions set out in paragraphs 154 and

Whilst there is no evidence before me that the proposal meets any of the exceptions in paragraph 154, the appellant has made a case that the development would utilise grey belt land and that, by satisfying the requirements of paragraph 155, it should not be regarded as inappropriate development.

Grey belt is land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not contribute strongly to any of the purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143 of the Framework. The appeal site constitutes other land, and it is not in dispute between the main parties that it does not contribute strongly to checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas (purpose a), preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another (purpose b) or preserving the setting of historic towns (purpose d). On the basis of the evidence before me I find no reason to disagree with this conclusion.

As a result, and since the site does not include any of the areas or assets listed in footnote 7 of the Framework, it is grey belt as defined by the Framework. Having found the site to be grey belt, the proposal falls to be assessed against the four criteria in paragraph 155 of the Framework. The main parties agree, and I concur, that the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan (criterion a).

The Council, although arguing that a housing target based on an unconstrained local housing need figure is not appropriate for Tandridge, nonetheless accepts that it does not currently have a five year housing land supply. The Tandridge District Council Annual [name] 2024/2025 records a supply of 2.17 years. The Framework confirms that the lack of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites amounts to a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. The proposal therefore satisfies criterion (b).

Criterion (c) requires development to be in a sustainable location. Both main parties have referred to the Planning Inspectorate Webinar 6 “What is meant by a sustainable location?”, to which I have had regard in assessing whether the site is sustainably located. The site forms part of a cluster of dwellings situated about one mile from [site address] , which possesses a moderate range of facilities. The route to [site address] is via [address], which does not possess a pavement or lighting, and the A22 [address], which possesses a narrow pavement on the opposite side from [address] but no lighting. [address] is a relatively quiet road, with a 40mph speed limit, but [address] is busier, with a 50mph speed limit.

As a consequence, walking along such a route would not, from my observations, be a pleasant experience and would be likely to discourage future residents. An alternative off road pedestrian route to [site address] would be seasonally and weather dependent. The likelihood of future residents walking to [site address] by either route, even in daylight and good weather, strikes me as low, notwithstanding the definition of ‘walkable’ in the National Design Guide, which advises that for commuting purposes a walking distance of 2km is acceptable.

The routes to [site address] and other centres lack dedicated cycle lanes and would be challenging for cyclists who were not experienced. The appellant has entered into a deed of unilateral undertaking under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to purchase one electric bicycle voucher per dwelling. Whilst such an undertaking would make it more likely that future residents would purchase electric bikes and use them as a mode of transport, this would not overcome the unattractiveness of the route to [site address] . Therefore, the likelihood of future residents cycling to [site address] or other centres would remain low.

There are no regular bus services linking the appeal site to [site address] or higher order centres, with the nearest bus stops being at [site address] . The nearest train stations at Lingfield and Godstone are some distance away.

[name] is a [name] on-demand bus service which has been operated by Surrey County Council since 2021, and for which funding has been committed until 2029. The service operates on weekdays from 7am to 7pm and on Saturdays from 8am to 6pm, and uses accessible electric minibuses to provide access to [site address] , Oxted and Redhill among other destinations. Bookings are made on a first come first served basis. The nearest virtual bus stop is located on [address], close to the appeal site.

[name] offers the possibility of accessing higher order centres, it does not operate in the evenings or on Sundays, and it requires pre-booking each time it is used. It is unclear what happens when the service is not available at the time requested by a user. It is therefore unlikely to be a realistic choice on a regular basis. Moreover, with funding only committed for the next three years, the long term future of the service is not guaranteed. Whilst a similar charge could be laid against other forms of public transport, the service is relatively new, making it potentially susceptible to future budget cuts.

Two recent appeal decisions nearby have been brought to my attention. In an appeal at [address] near Oxted1, the Inspector found that the pedestrian route to the nearest local facilities and railway station, whilst a little over 1 mile, was useable and pleasant on foot, and that cycling would be a realistic option for some occupants depending on the weather. [name] was assessed as operating like a taxi service and best suited to mostly one-off and occasional journeys. The Inspector concluded that, overall, the location was sustainable. The appeal site does not share the same characteristics in terms of the walking and cycling route to the nearest facilities, and therefore the Inspector’s conclusions are of limited relevance. 1 PINS reference APP/M3645/W/24/3352066

In respect of an appeal at [address] near East Grinstead2, the nearest railway station was around 400m away, and whilst the Inspector found that the route would not be desirable for pedestrians owing to the lack of footpaths and lighting, it was held to be straightforward even for inexperienced cyclists. Consequently, the site was found to be sustainably located. The same considerations do not apply to the appeal site, however, and I therefore afford the Inspector’s conclusions limited weight.

I have been referred to a number of planning permissions for new houses in the local area3, including the original planning permission for the houses adjacent to the appeal site. In each case, existing buildings were to be either converted or replaced. [name] have not been supplied with the relevant officer reports, I do not know which policies the schemes were assessed against or how the planning balance was applied, and in particular why the County Highway Authority’s concerns regarding the sustainability of each site were not determinative. Consequently, because the circumstances in these examples were not comparable to the proposal, they have limited relevance. This is borne out by the fact that an appeal to include an additional two dwellings on the appeal site itself, which at that time formed the garden of a house associated with the former kennels, was dismissed as being inappropriate development in the Green Belt, although the location of the site was not itself determinative4.

I have had regard to the advice in paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework that when prioritising sustainable transport modes, decision-making which should take into account that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Even accounting for the fact that the development is not significant in scale and that the site is in a rural area, the choice of transport modes would be very limited, placing undue reliance on [name], which as I have set out is not a realistic alternative to the car. For these reasons, future occupiers would be largely reliant on the private car. The proposal would not therefore be in a sustainable location, as required by paragraph 155(c).

Criterion (d) is not applicable as the proposal is not for a major development.

In summary, although the site is grey belt, the proposal conflicts with paragraph 155(c) of the Framework. Consequently, it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The appeal site is undeveloped and separate from the main cluster of dwellings along [address], although its rear boundary adjoins the long rear garden of a house accessed from [address]. The side of the appeal site and part of its frontage abut a cul-de-sac of seven houses set back from [address]. Mature trees on the side and rear boundaries provide good natural screening, whilst the front of the site is screened by a close-boarded wooden fence, with individual mature trees on the opposite side of the road.

Openness has both spatial and visual aspects, and additionally requires consideration of the degree of activity likely to be generated. In spatial terms, the proposal would result in the introduction of two dwellings where currently there is 2 PINS reference APP/M3645/W/25/3374430 3 LPA references TA/15/851, TA/16/1684, TA/20/1051, TA/21/0353 and TA/21/0198 4 PINS reference APP/M3645/W/17/3171376 no built form. By virtue of having their upper floor accommodation largely within the roof space, the proposed dwellings would have a relatively low profile, comparable with existing dwellings within the cul-de-sac. The natural screening around two sides of the appeal site and the presence of a dwelling on the third side would mean that from these directions the proposal would have only a limited visual impact. From the front of the site, however, the proposal would have an appreciable effect on visual openness, notwithstanding that longer views of the site would be obscured by planted field boundaries.

The proposal would result in a modest increase in activity associated with the two dwellings as a result of additional trips by road and activities associated with the enjoyment of outside space. In the context of the seven dwellings already located in [address], the additional activity associated with the proposed dwellings would not have a marked effect on openness, and would not therefore be harmful to the Green Belt.

Taking these factors together, the proposal would result in a harmful loss of openness, in conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy, set out in paragraph 142 of the Framework, of keeping land permanently open.

Policy DP5 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014-2019 [name] 2014 (LP) requires, amongst other things, that proposals provide access by public transport, foot and bicycle to nearby facilities. Surrey County Council’s Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4) reinforces these aims by seeking to establish liveable neighbourhoods, and can be regarded as a material consideration.

I have identified that, even accounting for paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework, the proposal would not be in a sustainable location and would as a consequence place undue reliance on the car. The lack of suitable access to facilities using public transport, on foot and by bicycle would conflict with Policy DP5 of the LP.

Although the reason for refusal only refers to [address], both main parties have supplied evidence in relation to the A22 [address] as well. As residents seeking to walk or cycle to facilities in [site address] would need to use these roads, I have given consideration to the potential impact on the safety of both roads.

I have recorded above that there are no pavements and lighting on [address], whilst there is a narrow pavement but no lighting on [address]; and that there are no cycle lanes on either road. The Council considers that the narrow pavement on [address] would bring pedestrians into close proximity with high volumes of traffic, including significant numbers of heavy goods vehicles travelling at up to 50mph. It has drawn attention to the fact that pedestrians would need to cross [address] to reach the pavement, at a point where there are no crossing facilities. The Council moreover considers both roads to be unsuited to cycling.

[name] have found that [address] and to some degree [address] would not provide a pleasant experience for pedestrians and cyclists, this does not mean that the roads are necessarily unsafe. The appellant has supplied recent personal injury collision data which appear to show one serious incident at the junction of the two roads, details of which have not been provided, and various minor incidents. From my observations, it seems to me that a pedestrian taking due care could cross [address] and walk along the narrow pavement safely. Likewise, an experienced cyclist would be able to traverse the route safely, notwithstanding the amount and speed of traffic. My findings regarding safety are reinforced by the fact that the routes are unlikely to be attractive to pedestrians and cyclists and therefore few residents would utilise them.

Paragraph 116 of the Framework guides that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. In the absence of compelling evidence that [address] and [address] would be unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists, I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on highway safety. The proposal would satisfy Policy DP5 of the LP, which requires proposals to provide safe access on foot and by bicycle to facilities, and in so doing would accord with the LTP4’s objective of safe road use.

BNG is required under the statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act), inserted by the Environment Act

The biodiversity gain objective of at least a 10% increase is measured against the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat for the development, with the objective being met if the post-development biodiversity value is exceeded by at least 10%.

Government advice is that there are three ways of achieving 10% BNG: enhancing and restoring onsite BNG; or, if this is not possible, delivering a mixture of on- and off-site BNG either on land outside the development site or by purchasing off-site biodiversity units; or, if none of these are possible, buying statutory credits from the government.

The appellant’s calculations show a deficit of medium distinctiveness broad habitat on site, necessitating the off-site provision of other neutral grassland and bramble scrub in order to achieve a 10% net gain. To deliver this, the appellant has entered into a deed of unilateral undertaking under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to purchase habitat units to achieve a 10% net gain overall. Because the appellant has demonstrated that they cannot achieve the required 10% gain on-site, their approach of mixing on- and off-site BNG accords with government advice.

Having reviewed the obligation, I am satisfied that it meets the three tests of Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and paragraph 58 of the Framework, namely that it is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, is directly related to the development, and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

I therefore conclude that the proposal satisfies the requirement for BNG in Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Council’s housing undersupply was addressed in a recent appeal decision at the former [address] site in Nutfield5. The Inspector found that housing under-delivery in Tandridge is persistent, chronic and extremely serious. The Council had failed the [name] (of 75%) every year in which it had been measured, and there had been a shortfall of 4,696 new homes in the last 5 years. The Council’s 2022 Interim Policy Statement for [name] (IPSHD) had had no significant effect in improving housing delivery since its adoption. The Inspector concluded that to meet the housing needs of the District, there was no option but to deliver housing through the development management process in the short to medium term.

The Council lacks an up-to-date spatial strategy and the proposal would provide a modest number of houses to address the Council’s housing shortfall. The houses would be in a rural area where sites offering sustainable transport options are in limited supply.

The appeal site currently performs no meaningful role and the proposal would make efficient use of this land. The houses would modestly extend the existing development at [address] and would not be perceived as an incursion into open countryside.

The houses would be constructed using sustainable methods and would incorporate electric vehicle charging facilities. They would utilise natural materials to match the existing houses on the cul-de-sac. The site is of low ecological value, and the proposal would provide for habitat enhancement. Most existing trees would be retained, and additional soft landscaping provided.

I attach moderate positive weight to these considerations.

I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm its openness, matters to which the Framework requires me to attach substantial weight. It would be unsustainably located, which also attracts substantial negative weight. The other considerations above, which include the provision of two additional dwellings, do not clearly outweigh the harm arising from inappropriateness and the other harms. The very special circumstances required to justify the proposal do not, therefore, exist.

Policy CSP 1 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy Adopted 15 October 2008 (CS) and policies DP10 and DP13 of the LP set out the Council’s Green Belt strategy. They indicate that planning permission will normally be refused for inappropriate development unless very special circumstances exist, and provide a list of exceptions which broadly align with those in paragraph 154 of the Framework. Although both plans significantly predate the 2024 version of the Framework, meaning that neither identifies grey belt land as an exception, this conflict is of limited relevance since I have found that the proposal would not satisfy paragraph 155.

The Council’s IPSHD was adopted in September 2022 with the aim of providing a consistent approach for determining housing applications. In respect of the Green 5 PINS reference APP/M3645/W/25/3374913 Belt, it supports proposals to redevelop previously developed land and proposals on infill sites in settlements, which maintain the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal does not achieve either of these objectives, and whilst the IPSHD attracts some weight as a material planning consideration, this reinforces the policy conflicts I have identified.

The proposal would conflict with Policy CSP 1 of the CS and policies DP10 and DP13 of the LP, and the parts of Policy DP5 of the LP which deal with sustainable transport.

Given that the application of policies in the Framework that protect the Green Belt provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed, paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework is not engaged.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.