Planning appeal decision
Burstow Bridge Cottage, Church Lane, Burstow, Surrey, RH6 9TG
Planning appeal 3269409 at Burstow Bridge Cottage, Church Lane, Burstow, Surrey, RH6 9TG (Tandridge District Council) was dismissed on 23 July 2021 by Inspector Roberts G, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised Framework and development plan policy.
demolition of existing garage. Erection of side, front and rear extension in association with lower ground floor and accommodation over, single storey rear infill extension, porch to side elevation and new raised roof over. Changes to fenestration and remodelling of dwelling and rear terrace (amended description)
- Authority
- Tandridge District Council
- Appeal type
- householder · Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Householder developments
- Inspector
- Roberts G
- Postcode
- RH6 9TG
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the revised Framework and development plan policy
- The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt
- The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing site and surrounding area
- If the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development
What decided it
The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt by reason of disproportionate additions to the original building, and the harm to the Green Belt and character and appearance cannot be outweighed by the other considerations advanced, so very special circumstances do not exist.
Substantial weight was given to the harm to the Green Belt (as required by the Framework), and the other considerations in the case (remodelling benefits and fallback position) did not outweigh that harm, so the appeal was dismissed.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy DP13Policy DP10Policy CSP18Policy DP7Policy DP1
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 149Paragraph 145Paragraph 147Paragraph 143Paragraph 137Paragraph 133
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Tandridge District Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021
- Allowed29 October 20266006369Land at Thornhill, Westerham Road, Limpsfield, Oxted, RH8 0ED
- Dismissed14 October 20266008351Development Site West of Southwood, Waller Lane, Caterham, CR3 5EA
- Dismissed13 October 20266007518Rosemary Cottage, Smallfield Road, Horne, Horley, RH6 9JP
- Dismissed23 September 20266008688Land Adjacent to Farm View Cottage, Lingfield Road, East Grinstead, RH19 2JW
- Dismissed22 September 20266011736Land Adjacent to Oaklands Drive, Copthorne Bank, Copthorne, RH10 3JD
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®