Planning appeal decision
Land Adjacent to 24 and 25 Dale View , Headley, Epsom, Surrey KT186EH, KT18 6EH
Planning appeal 3313906 at Land Adjacent to 24 and 25 Dale View , Headley, Epsom, Surrey KT186EH, KT18 6EH (Mole Valley District Council) was dismissed on 29 September 2023 by Inspector Szymanski D, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Two new dwellings and associated uses
- Authority
- Mole Valley District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Szymanski D
- Postcode
- KT18 6EH
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt
- the effect of the proposal upon the openness of the Green Belt
- the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area
- the effect of the proposal upon non-designated heritage assets (NDHAs) of archaeological interest
- whether or not the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for the future occupiers, with particular reference to daylight and outlook
- the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No 24 Dale View, with particular reference to noise and disturbance
- if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, and if so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal
What decided it
The proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt causing significant harm to openness, and the housing benefits do not clearly outweigh this substantial harm and other identified harms to justify very special circumstances.
The significant weight given to housing delivery benefits was outweighed by the substantial weight given to harm to the Green Belt (inappropriateness and loss of openness), harm to character and appearance, harm to living conditions of future occupiers, and conflict with heritage asset policies; the tilted balance did not apply because Green Belt protection policies provide a clear reason for refusal.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CS1Policy CS2Policy CS14Policy CS18Policy ENV22Policy ENV23Policy ENV24Policy ENV32Policy MOV2Policy MOV5Policy 49
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 48Paragraph 78Paragraph 79Paragraph 80Paragraph 105Paragraph 119Paragraph 124Paragraph 130Paragraph 137Paragraph 138Paragraph 147Paragraph 148Paragraph 149Paragraph 150Paragraph 194Paragraph 203
- Judgments
- Wood v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 683 (Admin); R (Tate) v Northumberland County Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1519
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
- Dismissed15 September 20266006697Woodstock House, Mole Street, Ockley, RH5 5PB
- Allowed11 September 20266012763Fourays, Horsham Road, Capel, Dorking, RH5 5LF
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.
®