Tandridge District Council appeal evidence
Refused over Green Belt development in Tandridge?
Learn what selected Tandridge appeals say about Green Belt openness and inappropriate development.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 54 of 117
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 39
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 45
- of 54 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Tandridge LPA (51.227075, −0.043374). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Tandridge District Council appeal findings
Tandridge Green Belt openness and inappropriate development
The selected examples contain proportionally more allowed appeals than the matched local set. An allowed extension extract records only the Council’s case, not the Inspector’s conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Green Belt openness and missing justification
Added bulk reduced openness
Despite limited public visibility, the larger first-floor extension reduced Green Belt openness through its added volume and bulk.
Neutral effects had no positive weight
The lack of character and appearance harm carried neutral weight. The Inspector concluded that the necessary very special circumstances did not exist.
Helped or needed
No physical change and Green Belt status
No physical changes to the shed
The change of use brought no physical or visual changes, preserving the existing spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt.
Housing scheme was not inappropriate
For this housing proposal, the Inspector said an openness assessment and very special circumstances were not required.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say added volume or bulk would reduce Green Belt openness?
- Does it identify whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt?
- Are there physical or visual changes beyond the existing building or use?
The selected Tandridge examples cover extensions, a change of use, a car port and housing, so their facts are not interchangeable. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
3 examples
22 July 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
two storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised Framework and development plan policy.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council contend that the proposed extension would be disproportionate to the original building resulting in significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt. This harm arises, the Council argue, from the appeal proposal being mathematically and visually disproportionate to the modest scale of the original building, representing a significant addition to the bulk and size of the building. In relation to the mathematical assessment, the Council indicate that the appeal proposal would result in an increase of approximately 43.5% in the volume of the original building. In all other respects, the Council found that the appeal proposal would be acceptable and that specifically it would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or impact on character and appearance.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
30 March 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the retention of former chicken shed as ancillary residential accommodation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and relevant development plan policies; and • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The former chicken shed has previously been granted a certificate of lawfulness1 for use as an independent dwelling and I saw on my site visit that it was being used as such. The proposal would change the use of the building only, with no physical changes proposed. Therefore, this change of use would not impact the spatial or visual openness of the Green Belt, preserving the current level of openness. As there would be no visual changes to the appeal site, I am satisfied the proposal would not conflict with the purpose of including the land within the Green Belt.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
16 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of 7 dwellings, car parking and associated landscaping to the rear of [site address] .
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); and if it is inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Where a proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as per Paragraph 155 of the Framework, an assessment on the effect of the proposals on the openness of the Green Belt is not required. Likewise, very special circumstances do not need to be demonstrated in order for the proposals to be considered acceptable in Green Belt terms. Consequently, the scheme accords with Policies DP5, DP10 and DP13 of the LP and the Framework, which collectively seeks to protect the Green Belt from harm and promotes access by 1 APP/M3645/W/25/3371822 public transport, foot and bicycle to nearby residential, commercial, retail, educational, leisure and recreational areas where appropriate.
Paragraph 17 · Source pages 3, 4
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
24 February 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing conservatory and roof section and erection of first floor extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and relevant development plan policies; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • Would the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Due to the location of the dwelling, a significant distance from the road, the proposal would have limited visibility from the public realm and therefore limited visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt. However, the proposed development would create an extended dwelling which would be substantially larger than the existing building. Although it would sit within the footprint of the current building and the surrounding site is spacious in nature, the proposal would nevertheless have a significant spatial impact on the openness of the Green Belt due to the increase in its volume and bulk. Therefore, there would be a spatial impact to the openness of the Green Belt from the proposed first floor extension, in that it would be reduced.
Paragraph 10 · Source pages 2, 3
17 August 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of detached car port.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and the development plan; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site, surrounding area and Area of [name]; and • If the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Framework advises that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts and that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. The proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and further harm would be caused by the reduction in Green Belt openness. The lack of harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property, the surrounding area and the Area of [name] carry neutral weight. In addition, the proposal would fail to comply with the circumstances set out in Local Plan Policy DP14 where new garages and other ancillary buildings may be permitted in the Green Belt, outside the [name]. In short, the very special circumstances necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4