Planning appeal decision
Blakes Lane Farm,, Blakes Lane, Guildford, Surrey, GU4 7RR
Planning appeal 3373297 at Blakes Lane Farm,, Blakes Lane, Guildford, Surrey, GU4 7RR (Guildford Borough Council) was dismissed on 18 December 2025 by Inspector De Freitas Terceiro P, 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 Framework and relevant development plan policies.
outline application for between 3 – 5 self-build houses
- Authority
- Guildford Borough Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- De Freitas Terceiro P
- Postcode
- GU4 7RR
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and 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, with reference to the Area of Great Landscape Value
- 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 satisfy the sustainable location criterion of paragraph 155 of the Framework because the site's location on a narrow rural lane without footways, streetlamps or safe cycling infrastructure would necessitate reliance on private motor vehicles, and the harms to Green Belt openness and landscape character are not clearly outweighed by the benefits of housing delivery.
The benefits of housing delivery and self-build provision, carrying great weight, do not clearly outweigh the combination of harm by reason of inappropriateness, considerable harm to Green Belt openness, and significant harm to rural character and appearance; the strong reason for refusal provided by Green Belt protection policies applies despite the Council's inability to demonstrate five-year housing supply.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy P2Policy ID3Policy P1Policy D1Policy H1
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 57Paragraph 110Paragraph 115Paragraph 153Paragraph 154Paragraph 155
- Judgments
- Visao Ltd v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 276 (Admin); Ardleigh Parish Council vs Tendring District Council & Flying Trade Group Limited EWHC 648 (Admin); NRS Saredon Aggregates Ltd v Secretary of State [2023] EWHC 2795 (Admin); Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council v SSHCLG & Jerry Doherty [2021] EWHC 1082 (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 Guildford Borough Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Allowed15 October 20266008529Shortland Farm, Guildford Road, Ash, GU12 6DF
- Allowed14 October 20266009751Land South of Green Lane, West Horsley, GU23 6PQ
- Dismissed6 October 20266009810Hogs Back Farm Yard, Monkshatch, Compton, GU3 1DL
- Allowed5 October 20266012736The Cottage, Blanket Mill Farm, Goose Rye Road, Worplesdon, Guildford, GU3 3RQ
- Dismissed23 September 20266009962Pentire, The Avenue, Worplesdon, GU3 3RA
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.
®