Planning appeal decision
Land Lying to South West of Tilthams Corner Road, (Known As The Loseley), Godalming, Surrey, GU5 0BT
Planning appeal 3374326 at Land Lying to South West of Tilthams Corner Road, (Known As The Loseley), Godalming, Surrey, GU5 0BT (Guildford Borough Council) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 31 March 2026 by Inspector Graham J, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: The implications of the fact that the Appeal Site is located within the Green Belt.
Without planning permission, the material change of use of the land for residential purposes, through the siting of caravans and associated unauthorised operational development, including building and engineering operations comprising buildings, installation of cesspit / septic tanks and drainage works, the creation of an access and the laying of material to create a hardsurface
- Authority
- Guildford Borough Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Minor traveller and caravan pitches
- Inspector
- Graham J
- Postcode
- GU5 0BT
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The implications of the fact that the Appeal Site is located within the Green Belt
- The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area
- The effect of the development on the safety and function of the local road network
- Whether the Appeal Site is a "sustainable location" for the development
- The need for, and supply of, Gypsy and Traveller pitches
- The personal circumstances of the Appellants and other occupiers of the Appeal Site, and the best interests of any children involved
What decided it
The significant and substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the Surrey Hills National Landscape, found to constitute a strong reason for refusal under NPPF paragraph 189, which disapplied the tilted balance and was not outweighed by the benefits of meeting unmet Gypsy and Traveller need.
The substantial harm from inappropriate development in the Green Belt (including harm to openness and Green Belt purposes) combined with the significant/substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area and SHNL setting, plus limited weight against the intentional unauthorised development, outweighed the considerable weight attached to the unmet need for pitches, lack of five-year supply, absence of alternative sites, personal circumstances and best interests of the children, so planning permission was refused.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy P1Policy D1Policy D4Policy ID3Policy P2Policy P7(1)
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 153Paragraph 160Paragraph 154Paragraph 155Paragraph 189Paragraph 110Paragraph 115Paragraph 116Paragraph 11Paragraph 142Paragraph 143Paragraph 187Paragraph 191
- Judgments
- Quarry Mews Ltd v SSHCLG & Oxford CC [2025] EWHC 1968 (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 2026
- decided16 October 202660107129 Baldwin Crescent, Guildford, GU4 7XW
- 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
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.
®