Case Reference: 3347328

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 10 December 2024
by E Dade BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 10 January 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/M3645/W/24/3347328
Woodside House, Copthorne Bank, Copthorne, Surrey RH10 3JD
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Tandridge District Council.
• The application Ref is TA/2023/1480.
• The development proposed is demolition of existing dwelling, garage, and outbuildings (retention of
shed and garage). Construction of 2 x detached dwellings and 1 x detached garage with new
driveway and car parking areas.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing
dwelling, garage and outbuildings (retention of shed and garage). Construction of
2 x detached dwellings and 1 x detached garage with new driveway and car
parking areas at Woodside House, Copthorne Bank, Copthorne, Surrey RH10 3JD
in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref TA/2023/1480, subject to the
conditions in the attached schedule.
Preliminary Matters
2. On 12 December 2024, Government published a revised National Planning Policy
Framework (the Framework). This included revisions to policies that are pertinent
to the appeal, such as those relating to development in the Green Belt. During the
appeal the parties were invited to comment on the relevance of the revised
Framework to the appeal proposal. In my decision, I have had regard to the
parties’ written responses.
Main Issues
3. The main issues in this appeal are:
• Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt
having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies; and
• The effect of the proposal on protected species.
Reasons
Whether inappropriate development
4. The application site comprises a substantial plot, containing a large, detached,
two-storey dwelling, detached double garage, outbuildings, and garden. The site is
outside a settlement boundary and is within the Green Belt.
5. Paragraph 142 of the Framework attaches great importance to Green Belts. It
states the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by
keeping land permanently open and identifies the essential characteristics of
Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
6. Policy DP10 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies 2014 (TLP)
supports the fundamental aim of keeping land permanently open and restricts
inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and
should not be approved except where very special circumstances exist. Policy
DP10 reflects the provisions of paragraph 153 of the Framework which resists
inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
7. TLP Policy DP13 identifies certain forms of development that are not inappropriate
within the Green Belt. Of particular relevance are criteria (F) and (G) of Policy
DP13 which, subject to meeting certain requirements, permit the replacement of
buildings and support the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment
of previously developed land outside Defined Villages. These exceptions broadly
reflect criteria (d) and (g) of paragraph 154 of the Framework.
8. In addition, paragraph 155 of the Framework identifies further circumstances
where development is not inappropriate in the Green Belt. Paragraph 155 states
the development of homes 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 ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in
Framework paragraphs 156-157.
Whether a replacement dwelling
9. Policy DP13(F) supports development of replacement buildings within the Green
Belt where the proposed new building is: (1) in the same use as the building it is
replacing; (2) is not materially larger than the building it is replacing; and (3) is
sited on or close to the position of the building it is replacing, except where an
alternative siting within the curtilage demonstrably improves the openness of the
Green Belt.
10. The proposed development would represent a total increase in floorspace of 39%
and built volume of 38%, relative to the existing buildings on site. Through this
substantial increase in built form, the proposed development would be materially
larger than the buildings being replaced.
11. Planning permission has been granted for extensions to the existing dwelling1. The
combined footprint of the proposed development would be no greater than the
existing dwelling and its permitted extensions. However, the permitted extensions
had not been constructed at time of my site visit and therefore do not contribute to
the dwelling’s existing built form.
12. The proposed development would comprise two dwellings and a detached garage.
The front dwelling would be sited broadly within the footprint of the existing
1 LPA ref: TA/2021/766
dwelling. However, the rear dwelling would be set back within the existing rear
garden, thereby resulting in a loss of open land. Therefore, the rear dwelling would
not be sited on or close to the position of the building it replaces, and the
alternative siting would not demonstrably improve the openness of the Green Belt.
13. The proposal would be in the same use as the existing site, satisfying criterion
Policy DP13(F)(1). However, through its size, scale, and siting, the proposed
development would fail to comply with criteria (2) and (3) of Policy DP13(F). The
proposal would not therefore comprise a replacement dwelling in the Green Belt.
Whether limited infilling or redevelopment of previously developed land
14. Policy DP13(G) permits limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of
previously developed sites in the Green Belt outside Defined Villages, 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.
15. The site is located at Copthorne Bank, which extends northeast from the village of
Copthorne. The area is characterised principally by its linear arrangement of
dwellings on either side of the highway, interspersed with agricultural land. A short
distance to the south is a modern cul-de-sac and there is a public house to the
southwest. As discussed above, the rear dwelling would be set back in the site
behind the front dwelling within an open area of garden land.
16. The siting of the rear dwelling would not reflect the layout of dwellings in the area
and would not fill any clear gap between existing development. Therefore, the
proposal would not comprise limited infilling.
17. The proposed development would be wholly within the existing dwelling plot. The
appellant asserts the site comprises previously developed land, drawing on
Dartford Borough Council v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 141 (14 March 2017) which concluded the
exclusion of private residential gardens from the Framework’s definition of
‘previously developed land’ referred only to land in built-up areas.
18. However, the development would introduce substantial built form and urbanising
features across the site, including a driveway, car parking, hardstanding, and
domestic paraphernalia. In addition, the net increase in dwellings would intensify
the use of the site, such as through additional vehicle movements.
19. Irrespective of whether the site comprises previously developed land, the
development would have a greater, adverse impact on the openness of the Green
Belt than the existing development. The proposal would not therefore meet the
criteria for the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of
previously developed sites, as set out at Policy DP13(G).
Grey belt and other tests (Framework paragraph 155(a)-(d))
20. 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) in paragraph 143, and 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.
21. The existing dwelling fronts onto the highway. There is a dwelling to the north, and
agricultural land to the south and beyond the site’s rear boundary. Through its
linear layout, adjoining agricultural land and dwellings, the appeal site is typical of
the area’s character.
22. The proposed development would be contained within the existing boundaries of
the dwelling plot and would not result in the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up
areas, the merging of towns, nor affect the setting and special character of historic
towns. Logically, I must therefore conclude the site does not strongly contribute to
purposes (a), (b) and (d) of paragraph 143 of the Framework. In addition, the
proposal would not affect areas or assets in footnote 7 of the Framework (other
than Green Belt). The proposal would therefore utilise grey belt land.
23. The scale of the proposed development would provide a similar overall quantum of
development in terms of footprint and volume to the permitted extensions and
existing dwelling. However, the built form would be spread across the site and
would be accompanied by hardstanding and domestic features and would intensify
its use. The spatial impacts of the proposed development on Green Belt openness
would therefore be greater than the existing dwelling, and the fall-back position
offered by the permitted extensions.
24. The site is well-screened by existing, mature boundary vegetation, and would not
be visually prominent within wider views of the landscape. Views of the
development would principally be experienced from passing vehicles and would
not be conspicuous from public vantage points or within the wider landscape.
25. The front dwelling would be visible from the site’s frontage and the rear dwelling
would be partly visible, set back in the site. The site contains existing residential
development, and there are other nearby dwellings, and therefore the magnitude
of visual change would be small. Nonetheless, the increased built form on the site
would have a marginally greater visual impact than the existing development.
26. The spatial and visual impacts of the proposed development would result in a
small loss of Green Belt openness. However, the development would utilise grey
belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes, taken together, of
the remaining Green Belt across the planning authority’s area. Therefore, the
proposal would comply with criterion (a) of Framework paragraph 155.
27. The Council accepts it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing and
delivery of housing has been below 75% of the housing requirement for the past
three years. The appellant draws on the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report to
conclude the Council has a housing land supply equivalent to 1.92 years.
Therefore, there is a significant shortfall in past delivery and future supply.
Consequently, for the purposes of criterion (b) of Framework paragraph 155, there
is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed.
28. This section of Copthorne Bank has a rural character but, due to the presence of
existing dwellings in the vicinity of the site, the proposed development would not
be in an isolated location. Furthermore, the highway connects the site with nearby
settlements including Copthorne with Burstow, Smallfield, and Domewood.
29. Whilst there are bus stops nearby, Copthorne Bank is subject to a 50mph speed
limit and there are no footpaths along this section. Future occupants would
therefore be dependent on use of a private car to meet their day-to-day needs.
However, paragraph 110 of the Framework recognises that opportunities to
maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas.
30. The proposal would result in a net increase of one dwelling on the site, and
therefore the volume of traffic movements associated with the proposed
development would be small. The proposed development would utilise the existing
vehicular access and there would be space for the parking and turning of vehicles
within the site. The local highway authority did not object to the proposal.
Therefore, I am content the proposal would not have significant impacts on the
capacity of the transport network, congestion, or highway safety.
31. Within the context of its rural location, I am satisfied the proposal would be in a
sustainable location, as required by criterion (c) of Framework paragraph 155, that
fulfils the requirements of paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework.
32. The proposed development is not major development, and therefore the
requirement of criterion (d) of Framework paragraph 155 to satisfy the ‘Golden
Rules’ are not applicable to the appeal proposal.
33. As set out above, the proposal would utilise grey belt land, there is a demonstrable
unmet need for housing, and the development would be in a sustainable location.
The Golden Rules are not applicable. The proposal would therefore satisfy criteria
(a)-(d) of paragraph 155 of the Framework. Consequently, the proposed
development would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
34. As set out above, the proposal would not meet the requirements of Policy DP13 for
replacement dwellings, limited infilling, or redevelopment of previously developed
land. However, Policy DP13 pre-dates the publication of the Framework and
includes no provision for development of grey belt land. The weight to be afforded
to the scheme’s conflict with Policy DP13 is therefore diminished.
35. The proposed development would utilise grey belt land and would satisfy all
criteria of paragraph 155 of the Framework. For this reason, the proposed
development would not be inappropriate development.
36. The proposal would therefore comply with TLP Policy DP10 which protects the
Green Belt from inappropriate development.
Protected species
37. In its decision, informed by consultation advice provided by Surrey Wildlife Trust’s
(SWT) Ecology Planning Advice Service, the Council concluded the proposal
contained insufficient information to demonstrate that the proposal would not have
an unacceptable effect on protected species.
38. The proposal was accompanied by an Ecological Appraisal Report, Wychwood
Environmental Ltd November 2023 (EAR). Reflecting advice from SWT, the
appellant subsequently submitted a Bat Emergence Survey, Wychwood
Environmental Ltd (July 2024), with further information contained within the appeal
statement of case.
39. SWT have reviewed this information and, in relation to bats advise that, prior to
occupation, evidence that a bat mitigation licence has been secured should be
submitted. In addition, SWT advise a Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan
and Construction Environmental Management Plan should be secured through
planning conditions. SWT also confirmed no further information is required in
respect of hazel dormouse.
40. Subject to such conditions being imposed, I am satisfied the proposal would not
have an adverse effect on protected species.
41. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy CSP17 of the Tandridge District
Core Strategy 2008 which requires development proposals protect biodiversity and
provide for the maintenance, enhancement, restoration and, if possible, expansion
of biodiversity, by aiming to restore or create suitable semi-natural habitats and
ecological networks to sustain wildlife in accordance with the aims of the Surrey
Biodiversity Action Plan. In addition, the proposal would satisfy TLP Policy DP19
which requires proposals demonstrate protected or priority species will not be
harmed, or appropriate mitigation measures will be put in place.
Conditions
42. The appellant confirms they raise no objection to the Council’s suggested
conditions, which include pre-commencement conditions. I have considered the
suggested conditions against the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In
addition to the standard time limit for commencement, in the interests of certainty I
have imposed conditions to ensure the development is carried out in accordance
with the approved plans.
43. To conserve the character and appearance of the area, I have attached conditions
requiring submission of details of external materials, hard and soft landscape
works, and tree protection plan.
44. In the interest of highway safety, I have included a condition requiring space for
the parking and turning of vehicles be laid out prior to occupation of the
development. To promote sustainable transport, I have attached conditions
requiring provision of electric vehicle charging and cycle storage.
45. In the ecological interests of the site, including the conservation of protected and
priority species, I have included conditions requiring submission of an Ecological
Enhancement Plan, Construction Environmental Management Plan, and evidence
of a bat mitigation licence. In addition, I have included a condition requiring the
development be carried out in accordance with the Ecological Appraisal Report’s
recommendations and identified mitigation measures.
46. To assist in the reduction of emissions in accordance with Policy CSP14 of the
Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008, I have included a condition requiring the
provision of on-site renewable energy.
47. To ensure privacy and ensure suitable living conditions for future occupants, I
have included a condition requiring obscure glazing at specified windows.
48. I have not imposed the suggested condition to remove permitted development
rights. Paragraph 55 of the Framework indicates planning conditions should not be
used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear
justification to do so. Such a condition would not be necessary to make the appeal
proposal acceptable in planning terms and would not comply with the Framework.
Conclusion
49. For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan taken as a
whole, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude the appeal should
be allowed.
E Dade
INSPECTOR
Schedule of Conditions
1) 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 nos 1228/01 Existing Site Layout Plan; 1228/02 D Replacement Dwelling
(Rear) Proposed Floor Plans & Roof Plan; 1228/03 A Replacement Dwelling
(Rear) Proposed Elevations; 1228/04 B Proposed Site Layout Plan; 1228/05
Replacement Garage Building Proposed Plans & Elevations; 1228/06 A
Replacement Dwelling (Front) Proposed Floor Plans and Roof Plan; 1228/07
Replacement Dwelling (Front) Proposed Elevations; 1228/08 Existing Floor
Plans; 1228/09 Existing Elevations; 1228/10 Detached Garage – Existing
Elevations; 1228/11 A Block Plan; 1228/12 Site Location Plan.
2) No development above ground level shall start until details of the materials to be
used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby
permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with these
approved details.
3) No development above ground level shall start until full details of both hard and
soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved.
These details shall include:
• proposed finished levels or contours
• means of enclosure
• car parking layouts
• other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas
• hard surfacing materials
• minor artefacts and structures (eg. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other
storage units, signs, lighting etc.).
• tree and hedgerow planting as compensation for those elements being
removed.
Details of soft landscape works shall include all proposed and retained trees,
hedges and shrubs; ground preparation, planting specifications and ongoing
maintenance, together with details of areas to be grass seeded or turfed. Planting
schedules shall include details of species, plant sizes and proposed
numbers/densities.
All new planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of
landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following
the completion or occupation of any part of the development (whichever is the
sooner) or otherwise in accordance with a programme to be agreed.
Any trees or plants (including those retained as part of the development) which
within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are
removed, or, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, become seriously
damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of
similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written
consent to any variation. The hard landscape works shall be carried out prior to
the occupation of the development.
4) No development shall start until a Tree Protection Plan relating to all stages of
development, for the protection of all trees and hedges to be retained on site or
trees located offsite within 12 metres of the site boundary, has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall
observe the principles of BS 5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition
and construction – Recommendations), shall be implemented prior to any works
commencing on site, shall be retained during the course of development, and
shall not be varied without the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.
In any event, the following restrictions shall be strictly observed unless otherwise
agreed by the Local Planning Authority:
(a) No bonfires shall take place within the root protection area (RPA) or within a
position where heat could affect foliage or branches.
(b) No further trenches, drains or service runs shall be sited within the RPA of
any retained trees.
(c) No further changes in ground levels or excavations shall take place within the
RPA of any retained trees.
5) The development hereby approved shall not be 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 purposes.
6) The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until each of
the proposed dwellings are provided with a fast charge socket (current minimum
requirements - 7 kw Mode 3 with Type 2 connector - 230v AC 32 Amp single
phase dedicated supply) in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained and
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
7) The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until
facilities for the secure, covered parking of 2 bicycles per dwelling and the
provision of a charging point for e-bikes by said facilities have been provided
within the development site in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter the said
approved facilities shall be provided, retained and maintained to the satisfaction
of the Local Planning Authority.
8) Prior to the commencement of development, an Ecological Enhancement Plan
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Subsequently, the development shall only be undertaken in accordance with the
approved Ecological Enhancement Plan, all measures set out within the
approved Ecological Enhancement Plan shall be implemented prior to the first
occupation of the dwelling and retained at all times thereafter.
9) Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Environmental
Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Subsequently, the development shall only be undertaken in
accordance with the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan, all
measures set out within the approved Construction Environmental Management
Plan shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwelling and
retained at all times thereafter.
10) Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, evidence of the bat
mitigation licence being secured shall be submitted to be approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
11) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
recommendations and mitigation measures set out in the ‘Ecological Appraisal
Report’ by Wychwood Environmental Ltd (November 2023) and ‘Bat Emergence
Survey’ by Wychwood Environmental Ltd (July 2024).
12) Before the development hereby approved is occupied, the renewable energy
technology as specified in the application details shall be installed and shall
thereafter be retained in perpetuity in accordance with the approved details.
13) Before the development hereby approved is occupied, the first-floor side windows
to both dwellings shall be fitted with obscure glass and shall be non-opening
unless the parts of the windows which can be opened are more than 1.7m above
the floor of the room in which the windows are installed and shall be permanently
maintained as such.
END OF SCHEDULE