Planning appeal decision
Horsielands Farm, Church Lane, Newdigate, Dorking, Surrey, RH5 5DP
Planning appeal 3350008 at Horsielands Farm, Church Lane, Newdigate, Dorking, Surrey, RH5 5DP (Mole Valley District Council) was dismissed on 3 February 2025 by Inspector Miles H, 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 2024 and any relevant development plan policies.
demolition of the existing buildings and development of three detached houses with associated parking, access and landscaping
- Authority
- Mole Valley District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Miles H
- Postcode
- RH5 5DP
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 2024 and any relevant development plan policies
- The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt
- The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area including with regard to Simons, a Grade II listed building and the Cartshed
- Biodiversity
- 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 substantial weight given to harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, combined with harm to openness, heritage assets and biodiversity, was not clearly outweighed by the moderate benefits of three new dwellings, particularly where a less harmful fallback position existed.
The substantial harm to the Green Belt and other harms (openness, heritage setting, biodiversity) were not clearly outweighed by the moderate benefits of three new homes and associated economic and social benefits, and very special circumstances were not established.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy EN1Policy EN4Policy EN6Policy EN9
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 154eParagraph 154gParagraph 155Paragraph 215
- Judgments
- Julian Wood v SSCLG, Gravesham Borough Council [2015] EWCA Civ 195; Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC & others [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
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.
®