Planning appeal decision
Orchard Cottage, Hambledon Park, Vann Lane, Hambledon, GU8 4DT
Planning appeal 3331714 at Orchard Cottage, Hambledon Park, Vann Lane, Hambledon, GU8 4DT (Waverley Borough Council) was dismissed on 18 March 2025 by Inspector Moore J, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Appeal A: whether there was a valid planning application before the Council, and if so, whether the application falls within the scope of Section 73 of the Act; and if so, whether it would be reasonable and necessary to remove the condition, having regard to the interests of: (i) the character and appearance of the area, including the conservation and enhancement of the SHNL and AGLV; and (ii) the Green Belt, with particular regard as to whether it would result in inappropriate development, having regard to national and local policies, including the effect upon openness where relevant; and if so, (iii) whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, including the proposed provision of affordable housing, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Retention of Orchard Cottage to provide affordable rented accommodation within the parish of Hambledon
- Authority
- Waverley Borough Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Moore J
- Postcode
- GU8 4DT
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Appeal A: whether there was a valid planning application before the Council, and if so, whether the application falls within the scope of Section 73 of the Act; and if so, whether it would be reasonable and necessary to remove the condition, having regard to the interests of: (i) the character and appearance of the area, including the conservation and enhancement of the SHNL and AGLV; and (ii) the Green Belt, with particular regard as to whether it would result in inappropriate development, having regard to national and local policies, including the effect upon openness where relevant; and if so, (iii) whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, including the proposed provision of affordable housing, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
- Appeal B: (i) the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area, including the SHNL and AGLV; (ii) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to national and local policies, including the effect upon openness where relevant; and if so (iii) whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, including the proposed provision of affordable housing, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
What decided it
The retention of Orchard Cottage would prevent the enhancement of the Surrey Hills National Landscape that was a key benefit of the original permission, and this conflict with policies requiring great weight to conserve and enhance National Landscapes could not be outweighed by the limited housing and sustainability benefits, particularly given the failure to secure affordable housing through a robust mechanism.
The Inspector found that although the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and the proposals would deliver one additional dwelling and affordable housing, the conflict with National Landscape policies (which have the highest level of protection in the Framework) and the loss of the landscape enhancement benefit from the original permission clearly outweighed these benefits, such that the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- LPP1 Policy AHN2LPP1 Policy CC1LPP1 Policy CC2LPP1 Policy RE2LPP1 Policy RE3LPP1 Policy TD1LPP2 Policy DM1LPP2 Policy DM2LPP2 Policy DM4LPP2 Policy DM15SHMP Policy P1SHMP Policy P2SHMP Policy P3
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 84Paragraph 125Paragraph 154Paragraph 161Paragraph 189
- Judgments
- Pye v Secretary of State for the Environment & North Cornwall District Council [1998] 3 PLR 76; Allied London Property Investment Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment & Another (1996) 72 P&CR 327; R. v Coventry City Council Ex p. Arrowcroft Group Plc [2001] P.L.C.R. 7; John Leslie Finney vs Welsh Ministers & Others [2019] EWCA Civ 1868; Freddie Reid v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Another [2022] EWHC 3116 (Admin); Armstrong v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Cornwall Council [2023] EWHC 142 (KB); Test Valley Borough Council v Chala Fiske [2024] EWCA Civ 1541; Dartford BC v SSCLG [2017] PTSR 737; Dartford BC v SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 141
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 Waverley Borough Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Dismissed22 October 20266013698Markwick Farmhouse, Markwick Lane, Godalming, GU8 4BE
- Dismissed5 October 20266012552Dene End, Sands Lane, Tilford Nr Farnham, GU10 2BA
- Dismissed5 October 20266011947Land off Station Road, Hydestile, Godalming, GU8 4DB
- Dismissed5 October 20266009555Combe Farm, Alldens Lane, Godalming, GU8 4AP
- Dismissed22 July 20266008792Mossy Copse, Smithwood Common Rd, Cranleigh, GU6 8QR
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.
®