®Planning appeal decision
1 Boxhill Nurseries Boxhill Road, Tadworth, KT20 7JF
Planning appeal 3306856 at 1 Boxhill Nurseries Boxhill Road, Tadworth, KT20 7JF (Mole Valley District Council) was dismissed on 21 August 2023 by Inspector O'Doherty A, 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 National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies.
erection of a three bedroom residential bungalow on garden amenity land and erection of a garage to serve the existing dwelling
- Authority
- Mole Valley District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- O'Doherty A
- Postcode
- KT20 7JF
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies
- the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt
- 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
What decided it
The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt that would harm its openness, and the benefits of housing delivery do not clearly outweigh this substantial harm to amount to very special circumstances.
The substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and loss of openness was not clearly outweighed by the moderate benefits of housing delivery, housing mix, economic contribution, and limited biodiversity gains.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CS1Policy CS2Policy CS3
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 137Paragraph 138Paragraph 148Paragraph 149Paragraph 219Paragraph 69
- Judgments
- Julian Wood v SSCLG, Gravesham BC [2014] EWHC 683 (Admin), [2015] EWCA Civ 195; Braintree DC v SSCLG & others [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 2023
- 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.