Case Reference: 3358089

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 14 April 2025
by H Miles BA (hons), MA, MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 29th April 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/C3620/W/24/3358089
Barn North of Wonham Lane, Wonham Lane, Betchworth, Surrey RH3 7AD
• 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 Mole Valley District Council.
• The application Ref is MO/2024/0859/PLA.
• The development proposed is conversion and change of use of barn to one dwelling house (Class
C3).
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
2. The main issues are:
• Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt
having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the
Framework) and any relevant development plan policies.
• The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt.
• The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of
the area.
• Whether the site would be a suitable location for housing with particular regard
to accessibility.
• The effect of the proposed development on biodiversity.
• The quality of the living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to
bin storage.
• 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.
Reasons
Whether inappropriate development
3. The Framework sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to
prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; and the essential
characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The
Framework goes on to state that inappropriate development is harmful to the
Green Belt. Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate, and thus should be
approved only if very special circumstances exist, unless they come within one of
the categories in the closed list of exceptions in the Framework.
4. Of relevance to this appeal, paragraph 154h iv) of the Framework provides for the
re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial
construction and they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict
with the purposes of including land within it. This is broadly echoed by Policy EN1
of the Mole Valley Local Plan (2024) (LP).
5. There is no dispute between the parties that the buildings are of permanent and
substantial construction. Therefore, I will go on to consider the effects on
openness.
Openness
6. Openness has both spatial and visual dimensions. The lawful use of the building is
for equestrian/agricultural use and the existing barn and surrounding fields are
characteristic of this typical countryside use. The barn is reached via a rough track
running from Wonham Lane which leads to the gated access to the field.
7. The appeal scheme proposes domestic use across the whole site including new
windows with large, glazed sliding doors to the south elevation, residential
gardens, the introduction of post and rail fencing as boundary treatment, and
domestic car parking. As well as an extended driveway connecting the building to
the existing track and Wonham Lane. This would be constructed with a ground
reinforcement system which would be infilled with grass.
8. Due to the site’s topography the barn is not easily seen from the road, however it
is likely to be seen from the nearby residential properties as well as the public
bridleway to the west, particularly when trees are not in leaf.
9. Notwithstanding that the type of boundary fencing would be characteristic of a rural
location, the proposed development would result in an evidently residential use to
the appeal site including the domestic paraphernalia outlined above. Whilst the
removal of permitted development rights could prevent the construction of
buildings such as sheds, this would not prevent domestic items like garden
furniture, play equipment or clothes drying which are reasonably associated with a
one bedroom property. The materials proposed for the driveway would result in a
mainly green appearance, and this would not be easily seen in public views.
Nevertheless, it would introduce regular residential vehicle use in this location
which would be perceived. In combination these factors would result in harm to the
openness of the Green Belt.
10. Therefore, for the reasons above, the proposed development would not preserve
the openness of the Green Belt and would be contrary to the Framework in this
regard. As such, it would not come under the exception in paragraph 154h iv) and
consequently would be inappropriate development in terms of the Framework and
Policy EN1 of the LP.
Character and Appearance
11. The barn’s surroundings are characterised by open fields and woodland with
scattered houses nearby resulting in a rural appearance, and the land slopes down
from the barn to Wonham Lane. As set out above, the appeal site is characteristic
of this countryside location. Therefore, the rural characteristics and appearance of
the appeal site make a positive contribution to the surrounding countryside land.
12. The Mole Valley Local Plan Landscape SPD (2013) identifies the appeal site as
being in the Holmesdale Landscape Character Area (LCA) in the Wealden
Greensand Valley. The undulating landscape with far reaching views and small to
medium scale field patterns in this area are characteristic of this LCA.
13. The proposed development would introduce a residential property, access drive,
domestic gardens and paraphernalia and associated activity to this site as set out
above, although there would not be an extension to the building. Nevertheless, this
would result in a clearly domestic appearance across the whole site. Additional
windows including large glazed double doors are also proposed and the residential
property would be lit at night, with light emitting from windows. Overall, the
urbanising nature of the development proposed would harmfully undermine the
rural characteristics of this location. It follows that I do not find that the proposed
development would enhance its immediate setting and as such, it would not gain
support from paragraph 84c of the Framework.
14. Therefore, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the
character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would be contrary to
Policy EN4 and EN8 of the LP which require high quality design, and development
which conserves and enhances local landscape character.
Accessibility
15. Policy INF1 of the LP requires, in part, that development should be located to
maximise the use of sustainable modes of transport. The Framework also requires
that development should prioritise sustainable transport modes. This applies to all
development proposals, including those within the Green Belt.
16. Wonham Lane is a narrow rural road with no pavements or street lighting. For
these reasons, it would not provide a safe and suitable route for pedestrians.
Whilst it may be possible to cycle to nearby settlements, these features mean that
it would not be an attractive cycling route for most people. Nor am I presented with
any detail that public transport would offer a realistic alternative to private car use
in this location. Consequently, occupiers of the proposed development would have
to travel by private vehicle to meet their day to day needs.
17. Surrey County Council Highways have not objected to this development and there
is no dispute with regard to the effect on highway safety or the impact on the road
network. Nevertheless, the majority of the journeys to and from this site would be
by private vehicle and so the proposed development is not in a sustainable
location.
18. As such, the site would not be a suitable location for housing with particular regard
to accessibility. In this regard it would be contrary to policy INF1 of the LP, the
aims of which are set out above.
Biodiversity
19. Policy EN9 of the LP supports development which conserves and enhances
biodiversity and requires that a biodiversity gain plan demonstrating biodiversity
net gain (BNG) of at least 20% must be approved before development
commences. There is also a national requirement to provide BNG, albeit certain
planning permissions including where there are impacts to less than 25sqm of
onsite habitat, and for self build and custom build development are exempt.
20. In their appeal submissions the appellant states that this property would be self
build housing. However, no mechanism has been submitted that would ensure that
the proposed house is constructed and occupied in this manner. As such, based
on the submissions in this case, the appeal scheme would not ensure that this
property would be self build and this exemption would not apply in these
circumstances.
21. The construction of the driveway would cover an area greater than 25sqm. It would
use a ground reinforcement system which would allow grass to grow through.
Nevertheless, considering the effects of regular vehicle access, I do not have
substantive evidence that this would not result in an impact to the habitat in this
area. Therefore, the development would not be subject to the de minimis
exemption.
22. The submitted small sites metric does not show the calculations. Furthermore, it
shows enhancements to the condition to two areas of grassland within the
residential garden. However I am not provided with a BNG proposal or any
mechanism to demonstrate how this would be reasonably secured and maintained
as part of a private garden area. As such, the evidence submitted does not satisfy
me that the BNG specified in the metric would be achieved in these
circumstances. Consequently, on the basis of the detail before me, the proposed
development would not conserve and enhance biodiversity on this site and BNG
would not be achieved.
23. Therefore, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on
biodiversity. As such, it would be contrary to Policy EN9 of the LP, the aims of
which are set out above.
Living conditions
24. A bin collection point is proposed to the South East of the proposed dwelling,
adjacent to Wonham Lane. Waste services have not objected to this collection
point. However, on collection day, bins would need to be taken 143m across a
sloping grassed field with no lighting. This route is impractical and potentially
unsafe for future occupiers. As such, it would be unacceptable to the living
conditions of occupiers of the proposed development.
25. The Framework requires that developments should provide a high standard of
amenity for future occupiers. In addition, policy EN4 of the LP provides criteria for
high quality design, including that development should ensure the amenity of
future occupiers is not significantly affected by poorly located and designed refuse
storage, amongst other things. Whilst the development plan does not provide a set
distance that bins can be carried, for the specific reasons set out above the
proposed refuse storage would result in poor quality living conditions for future
occupiers.
26. Therefore, the proposed development would result in an unacceptable quality of
living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to bin storage.
Consequently, it would be contrary to Policy EN4 of the LP, the aims of which are
set out above.
Other Matters
27. During the appeal process the LP has been adopted and I am satisfied that the
Council has a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Furthermore, the 2023
housing delivery test results published by the government indicate that the delivery
of housing was not substantially below the housing requirement over the previous
three years. As such, there is not a demonstrable unmet need for the type of
development proposed in the terms of paragraph 155b of the Framework.
Consequently, the proposed development would not meet the exception to
inappropriate development relating to grey belt land. Furthermore, paragraph 11d)
of the Framework is not engaged.
28. Wonham Manor is a Grade II listed building located on the opposite side of
Wonham Lane. Its significance derives from its historic appearance and detailing,
both external and interior. The appeal site is clearly separated from this building by
some distance across fields, the road and other buildings. As such, I agree with
the Council that the proposed development would not result in harm to the settings
of the listed building. Therefore, its setting would be preserved which would be a
neutral effect.
29. Policy H8 of the LP supports proposals for self-build housing subject to detailed
considerations. However, for the reasons above the proposed dwelling would not
be secured as a self build home.
30. The proposed development would provide a single new dwelling on a windfall site
and this would make a positive but small contribution to housing supply in the
borough. Therefore, overall, there would be modest benefits as a result of the
proposed development.
Green Belt Balance
31. I have concluded that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the
Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful. There is also harm to the Green Belt
due to the effect on openness. Additionally, I have found harm with regard to
character and appearance, biodiversity and the accessibility of the location.
Substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt. Very special
circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm
is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
32. On the other hand, the proposed development would provide the modest benefits
identified above. Consequently, the considerations advanced by the appellant,
even when considered together, do not clearly outweigh the totality of the Green
Belt harm. The very special circumstances necessary to justify the development
therefore do not exist.
Conclusion
33. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations
do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.
Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.
H Miles
INSPECTOR