Alfold homes have won outline planning permission for up to 70 dwellings west of Loxwood Road in Surrey, after an Inspector overturned Waverley Borough Council’s refusal. Jane Smith allowed Wates Developments’ appeal on 14th October 2026, with conditions controlling drainage, water supply and the details still to be approved.
The land lies between Alfold Crossways and the older village of Alfold. Residents had reported sewage flooding and raised concerns about further pressure on infrastructure. The decision accepts that the foul-water network lacks capacity, but allows the development subject to safeguards before homes can be occupied.
I would read this as a conditional route forward, rather than confirmation that the sewerage problem has already been fixed. The Alfold homes still need detailed design approval, and occupation must wait for the required foul-water upgrades or an agreed development and infrastructure phasing plan. In a separate decision, the Inspector refused both the developer’s full and partial claims for appeal costs.
Alfold homes depend on sewerage safeguards
The proposal involves demolishing Bridian Farmhouse and associated outbuildings and developing the largely open pasture site. Access from Loxwood Road is approved, but the appearance, layout, scale and landscaping are reserved for a later application. The illustrative masterplan does not settle where every house, internal road or play area will go.
The drainage issue was central. Southern Water’s network would directly serve the development and discharge to Loxwood Wastewater Treatment Works. Thames Water’s neighbouring network also feeds into that system, although these homes would not connect directly to Thames Water’s sewerage infrastructure.
Both providers confirmed inadequate foul-water capacity. Southern Water estimated 24 months from outline permission for reinforcement, while warning that more complex cases could need longer. That estimate is evidence considered in the appeal, not a guaranteed delivery date.
The Inspector accepted a Grampian condition, meaning a restriction tied to works or arrangements that involve land or bodies outside the developer’s control. She found that there was a realistic prospect of the necessary infrastructure being delivered within the permission’s timescale.
For the Alfold homes, condition 8 requires approval of the proposed foul-sewerage arrangements before development starts. Condition 10 then prevents occupation until the council, consulting Southern Water and Thames Water, has approved evidence of completed relevant foul-water upgrades or an appropriate agreed phasing plan.
If a phasing plan is agreed, occupation must follow it. There is a separate safeguard for water-supply upgrades or phasing, as well as conditions requiring an approved surface-water drainage design and verification of the installed system. You should therefore distinguish permission for housing from permission to occupy it immediately.
Housing shortage outweighed local landscape harm
The Inspector did not dismiss the effect on the village. She found that development would reduce the undeveloped land separating Alfold and Alfold Crossways, eroding their dispersed rural settlement pattern. That caused conflict with the neighbourhood plan and other countryside policies, bringing the proposal into conflict with the development plan as a whole.
Roadside trees and planting could limit views from Loxwood Road. Landscaped buffers beside the public rights of way could preserve attractive walking routes. Even with those measures, the appeal decision accepted some localised harm to character and appearance.
Against that, both main parties’ evidence put Waverley’s housing land supply at 1.28 years. The Inspector regarded the Alfold homes as a meaningful contribution towards a substantial shortage, alongside affordable housing and other benefits.
Her assessment applied the revised national planning framework issued on 17th August 2026. She found the site physically well related to Alfold Crossways and capable of being accommodated with the infrastructure measures secured. The parties had been able to comment on the revised policy during the appeal.
The neighbourhood plan remained relevant. The Inspector accepted that its identified housing requirement had already been met and that the national policy protecting qualifying recent neighbourhood plans applied. However, she concluded that this protection did not inevitably outweigh the benefits of the particular scheme.
This is why I would be cautious about treating the result as a simple rule that a housing shortage defeats a neighbourhood plan. The decision weighs this site’s relationship to the settlement, infrastructure prospects, affordable housing and limited landscape harm. Another proposal would need its own evidence.
Affordable housing and detailed design remain important
A legal undertaking requires at least 30% of the Alfold homes to be affordable. Within that provision, 70% would be affordable rented and/or social rented homes, with 30% shared ownership. The council did not object to that tenure mix in the undertaking.
The Inspector also required affordable housing details at the reserved-matters stage. Other obligations cover sustainable transport, a car club, highway safety, healthcare and management of open space and drainage. These are secured arrangements, not evidence that every improvement has already been delivered.
The permission contains 30 conditions. They include a maximum of 70 dwellings, tree protection, archaeological investigation, ecological mitigation, construction management and contamination safeguards. Applications for reserved matters must be made within three years; development must then take place within two years of the last reserved-matters approval.
Winning permission did not secure appeal costs
The separate costs ruling is useful for anyone assessing a council’s decision to refuse against its officers’ recommendation. The developer argued that sewerage concerns could have been resolved by conditions and that the council had not substantiated its refusal adequately.
But the Inspector found that committee members had evidence of actual sewage flooding and uncertainty about the nature and timing of upgrades. Officers’ advice and the providers’ lack of objection were relevant, but were not the only evidence before councillors.
Jane Smith described her eventual conclusion on the drainage condition as “a matter of judgement”. Reaching a different judgement from the council did not establish unreasonable behaviour causing wasted expense. The full costs claim was refused.
A procedural claim concerning preparation of the legal undertaking also failed. The Inspector considered staff changes, capacity constraints and the relatively limited period of correspondence. The urgency was linked to the written appeal procedure rather than inherent resistance by the council to completing an agreement.
For residents following the Alfold homes, the next documents to watch are the reserved-matters proposals and submissions addressing the water and drainage conditions. Those will show the detailed layout and how the occupation safeguards are proposed to operate.
Read the Planning Inspectorate’s full appeal decision and conditions and separate costs decision. Planning Geek has also covered a different Alfold permission in principle appeal; that earlier case concerns a separate proposal.
0 Comments