Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed28 November 20253367924

Hillside Farm, Cudworth Lane, Newdigate, Surrey, RH5 5BH

Planning appeal 3367924 at Hillside Farm, Cudworth Lane, Newdigate, Surrey, RH5 5BH (Mole Valley District Council) was dismissed on 28 November 2025 by Inspector Heppell J, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies, with particular reference to whether or not the site comprises grey belt and/or previously developed land (PDL), the accessibility of the site to services and facilities, the need for the development, and its effect on openness.

demolition of existing buildings and erection of detached dwelling with associated garage, landscaping and access

Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Minor Dwellings
Inspector
Heppell J
Postcode
RH5 5BH

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies, with particular reference to whether or not the site comprises grey belt and/or previously developed land (PDL), the accessibility of the site to services and facilities, the need for the development, and its effect on openness
  • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
  • 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 proposal fails to meet the criteria in paragraph 155 of the Framework (grey belt exception) because it does not satisfy the demonstrable unmet need test and is not in a sustainable location, and would cause substantial harm to openness, such that very special circumstances do not exist to justify inappropriate Green Belt development.

The substantial harm to openness and significant harm to character and appearance, together with the unsustainable location and conflict with development plan policies, were not outweighed by the benefits of housing provision, self-build potential, removal of agricultural buildings, economic benefits and ecological enhancements.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
Policy EN1Policy EN4Policy EN8Policy S1
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 11Paragraph 78Paragraph 110Paragraph 115Paragraph 143Paragraph 154Paragraph 155Paragraph 232

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 applied

The 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

50 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in Mole Valley District Council

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025

  1. Dismissed20 October 20266013764
    Priory Lodge, River Lane, Leatherhead, KT22 0AU
  2. Dismissed19 October 20266011465
    Land to the South-East of Yarm Way, Leatherhead, KT22 8RQ
  3. Dismissed16 September 20266008528
    Henhurst Lodge, Beare Green Road, Beare Green, RH5 4PX
  4. Allowed11 September 20266012763
    Fourays, Horsham Road, Capel, Dorking, RH5 5LF
  5. Dismissed9 September 20266005433
    Land 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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.