®Planning appeal decision
Land East of Woodcock Hill, Felbridge, RH19 2RD
Planning appeal 3343193 at Land East of Woodcock Hill, Felbridge, RH19 2RD (Tandridge District Council) was allowed on 20 February 2025 by Inspector Moore J, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the appeal site comprises grey belt land, with particular regard to the effect of the proposal upon Flood Risk and Ancient Woodland.
Demolition of existing three agricultural buildings together with the animal shelter and pig sty; erection of two dwellings together with access, parking and landscaping
- Authority
- Tandridge District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Moore J
- Postcode
- RH19 2RD
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the appeal site comprises grey belt land, with particular regard to the effect of the proposal upon Flood Risk and Ancient Woodland
- whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and development plan policies
- 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 proposal
What decided it
The revised Framework's introduction of the 'grey belt' concept and paragraph 155 criteria for residential development, combined with the Council's inability to demonstrate five-year housing land supply and the more harmful fallback position of the Class Q scheme, rendered the proposals not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
The conflict with development plan policy DP10 was outweighed by the material considerations of the Framework, particularly the grey belt status of the site, the demonstrable housing shortfall (1.92 years supply), and the benefits of the proposals compared to the more harmful fallback Class Q scheme, such that the proposals were suitable for the site.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy DP10Policy DP13
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 143Paragraph 154Paragraph 155Paragraph 193
- Judgments
- Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982 P37]; Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin)
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 Tandridge District Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Allowed29 October 20266006369Land at Thornhill, Westerham Road, Limpsfield, Oxted, RH8 0ED
- Dismissed26 October 2026601413931a Banstead Road, Caterham, CR3 5QH
- Dismissed14 October 20266008351Development Site West of Southwood, Waller Lane, Caterham, CR3 5EA
- Dismissed13 October 20266007518Rosemary Cottage, Smallfield Road, Horne, Horley, RH6 9JP
- Allowed25 September 20266006497Land at Mount Avenue, Chaldon, CR3 5BB
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.