Planning appeal decision
Chedworth,, Coopers Hill Road,, South Nutfield, Redhill,, RH1 5PD
Planning appeal 6009966 at Chedworth,, Coopers Hill Road,, South Nutfield, Redhill,, RH1 5PD (Tandridge District Council) was dismissed on 18 September 2026 by Inspector Barry John Lomax, 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 any relevant development plan policies, with particular regard to whether the proposal is in a sustainable location.
erection of up to 5 dwellings
- Authority
- Tandridge District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning
- Procedure
- Written
- Development
- residential
- Inspector
- Barry John Lomax
- Postcode
- RH1 5PD
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies, with particular regard to whether the proposal is in a sustainable location
- the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt
- the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
- if the development is inappropriate whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstance necessary to justify the development
What decided it
The proposal fails to satisfy criterion iii) of policy GB7 1(g) of the 2026 Framework—that development be in a sustainable location—because the site's poor accessibility, lack of attractive walking and cycling routes, and limited public transport mean future occupants would be heavily reliant on private car travel, which is incompatible with sustainable development.
The substantial weight given to housing delivery and moderate weight to economic benefits are insufficient to clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, the substantial harm to openness and conflict with the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding countryside from encroachment, the significant harm to character and appearance, and the significant harm from unsustainable patterns of travel; no very special circumstances are established.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy DP10Policy DP13Policy DP5Policy DP7Policy CSP18Policy DP14
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 Tandridge District Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2026
- Allowed29 October 20266006369Land at Thornhill, Westerham Road, Limpsfield, Oxted, RH8 0ED
- Dismissed14 October 20266008351Development Site West of Southwood, Waller Lane, Caterham, CR3 5EA
- Dismissed13 October 20266007518Rosemary Cottage, Smallfield Road, Horne, Horley, RH6 9JP
- Dismissed23 September 20266008688Land Adjacent to Farm View Cottage, Lingfield Road, East Grinstead, RH19 2JW
- Dismissed22 September 20266011736Land Adjacent to Oaklands Drive, Copthorne Bank, Copthorne, RH10 3JD
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.
®