Former Laporte Works Site , Nutfield Road, Nutfield , Surrey, RH1 4HG

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

• Whether the proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Metropolitan Green Belt in terms of whether it would fail to comply with the requirements set out in paragraphs 155 & 156 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), specifically whether: it would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across Tandridge, it would be in a sustainable location or one which could be made sustainable as per NPPF paragraph 110, and there would be necessary improvements to local infrastructure
• If the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development, whether very special circumstances exist to justify allowing it, namely whether the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, as per NPPF paragraph 153
• The extent of the development's (specifically the Integrated Retirement Community's) 'less than substantial harm' on the setting and consequently overall significance of the Grade II* St Peter & St Paul's Church and the Grade II Folly at Redwood as expressed on the customary scale for such, and whether such harm would be outweighed by the scheme's public benefits
• Whether the proposed development would result in any other significant harm
• The weight to be attached to any harm resulting from the development (as set out above) and to its benefits, leading to the planning balance, either the standard balance in NPPF paragraph 11d) i) or the tilted balance in 11d) ii)

What decided it

The very substantial benefits of the scheme, particularly the market and affordable housing provision in a district with a severe housing land supply shortfall, clearly outweighed the sole low level of less than substantial heritage harm, satisfying the tilted balance.

The very substantial, substantial and significant benefits of the scheme (housing including affordable and self-build, older persons housing, economic, transport, biodiversity and Green Belt Golden Rules compliance) clearly and demonstrably outweighed the sole low level of less than substantial heritage harm, so the tilted balance in NPPF paragraph 11d)ii) was met and the appeal allowed.