®Planning appeal decision
Oakstead Mill Lane, Hookwood, Horley, RH6 0HX
Planning appeal 3296026 at Oakstead Mill Lane, Hookwood, Horley, RH6 0HX (Mole Valley District Council) was dismissed on 21 November 2022 by Inspector Price A, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies, including the effect on the openness of the Green Belt.
the erection of a detached three bedroom dwelling
- Authority
- Mole Valley District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Price A
- Postcode
- RH6 0HX
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies, including the effect on the openness of the Green Belt
- if the proposed development is found to be inappropriate development, 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 proposed development
What decided it
The proposed development would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing structure and would constitute inappropriate development for which very special circumstances do not exist.
the benefits of the proposed development, including housing supply contribution and sustainable location, did not clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt caused by inappropriate development
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- CS Policy CS1CS Policy CS2
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 80Paragraph 149
- Judgments
- Wood v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 683; Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council [2018] EWCA Civ 489; Braintree DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2018] EWCA Civ 610
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 Mole Valley District Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2022
- Dismissed20 October 20266013764Priory Lodge, River Lane, Leatherhead, KT22 0AU
- Dismissed19 October 20266011465Land to the South-East of Yarm Way, Leatherhead, KT22 8RQ
- Dismissed16 September 20266008528Henhurst Lodge, Beare Green Road, Beare Green, RH5 4PX
- Allowed11 September 20266012763Fourays, Horsham Road, Capel, Dorking, RH5 5LF
- Dismissed9 September 20266005433Land Opposite Manor House,, Headley, Headley Common, KT18 6NA
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.