Planning appeal decision
City of London Freemens School, Park Lane , Ashtead, Surrey, KT21 1ET
Planning appeal 3341745 at City of London Freemens School, Park Lane , Ashtead, Surrey, KT21 1ET (Mole Valley District Council) was allowed on 6 March 2025 by Inspector Bowyer J, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including with regard to the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt.
erection of a replacement memorial building with associated access, car and cycle parking and landscaping, including woodland enhancement
- Authority
- Mole Valley District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- community-institutional · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Bowyer J
- Postcode
- KT21 1ET
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including with regard to the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt
- The effect of the proposal on the character of the landscape
- The effect of the proposal on the significance of Ashtead Park Registered Park and Garden and Rookery Hill Bridge, a Grade II listed building
- The effect of the proposal on protected species
- Whether or not there would be adequate provision for biodiversity net gain
- If the proposal would be inappropriate, 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 within the Green Belt
What decided it
The considerable health and social benefits arising from the provision of facilities for sport, recreation and community use, combined with support for community cohesion and the absence of suitable alternative locations, clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the limited harm to landscape character and heritage assets.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy EN1Policy EN4Policy EN6Policy EN8Policy EN9Policy AS-EN2Policy AS-EN3
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11
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 2025
- 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.
®