A grey belt appeal for eight houses at Chaldon in Surrey has been dismissed despite an Inspector accepting that the site was grey belt and that the homes were not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The decision, issued on 12 November 2026, turned on ancient woodland, protected bats, listed buildings, design and drainage.
Inspector Jane Smith considered land behind properties on Rook Lane, where Macar Homes (Southern Home Counties) Limited wanted eight detached four-bedroom homes. Tandridge District Council had refused the proposal. The Inspector visited the land on 13 October and agreed with the authority that other environmental and heritage constraints justified dismissal.
The grey belt appeal is a reminder of an important distinction in the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework: satisfying the grey belt definition is not the same as securing planning permission. Even where national policy no longer treats a proposal as inappropriate development in the Green Belt, separate protections can outweigh its housing benefits.
Why the grey belt appeal passed the Green Belt test
The site comprised open grazing land between housing along Rook Lane and the woodland behind it. Tandridge accepted that the land could meet the grey belt definition. The Inspector agreed, recording that I concur that the site is grey belt land as defined in the Framework
. Other recent appeals concerning plots along Rook Lane had reached a similar conclusion. The Inspector’s assessment followed the updated definition in the August 2026 Framework, which separates grey belt classification from other protected environmental assets.
The Inspector found the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes, taken together, of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area, and there was no dispute about unmet housing need. The scale meant the particular major-development criterion was inapplicable. A potentially difficult issue was whether the site’s location was sufficiently sustainable for the applicable national policy.
Caterham-on-the-Hill was not an easy walk and there was no dedicated cycling infrastructure. But local facilities, nearby buses and the practical possibility of some cycle journeys gave future residents a sufficient choice of transport modes. The Inspector considered the site’s rural context alongside the connectivity evidence, rather than treating a low connectivity score as a decisive automatic bar.
The grey belt appeal therefore passed the relevant national Green Belt test. Our grey belt guidance explains why the classification does not remove the land from the Green Belt or dispense with other development management policies.
Why Green Belt openness was not the problem
Having accepted that the proposal was not inappropriate development, the Inspector referred to the position explained in R (Lee Valley Regional Park Authority) v Epping Forest District Council [2016] EWCA Civ 404 and did not treat Green Belt openness as an additional reason for refusal.
The Inspector nevertheless found that the layout would be a poor fit with the semi-rural settlement pattern. Houses on Rook Lane were generally loosely arranged along the road, with significant spaces and open paddocks behind them. A backland estate of similarly sized detached homes would intrude into that distinctive pattern and diminish the area’s character.
That is a significant part of this grey belt appeal: passing a Green Belt policy test does not override an independent finding that a development’s siting, layout or appearance would harm local character.
Ancient woodland and bats were decisive
Four proposed homes would be within 15 metres of the ancient woodland boundary, and some rear gardens would directly meet the woodland edge. Natural England’s standing advice calls for a buffer of at least 15 metres, containing suitable habitat rather than houses and domestic gardens, to protect an irreplaceable woodland ecosystem.
The Inspector found that normal garden activity, pets, lighting, pollution and pressure to cut back overhanging trees could cause deterioration. Fencing would not deal with the wider effects. No adequate buffer or compensation strategy was offered, and no wholly exceptional reason was found to justify deterioration of the woodland. Planning Geek’s ancient woodland guide explains this stringent planning protection.
The evidence on bats was also inadequate. An existing animal shelter might support a roost, and the woodland was suitable for foraging or commuting bats. No bat surveys had been undertaken to rule out their presence. Windows facing the woodland would add artificial light. The Inspector considered that a planning condition could not fill the essential evidence gap after consent.
The grey belt appeal consequently failed two important ecological tests independently of its Green Belt classification. A statutory biodiversity net gain plan would not authorise the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat or avoid the need to understand protected species before making a decision.
Listed farm buildings, heritage and design
Nearby Grade II listed Rook Farm House and its barn were historic components of a rural farmstead. Their setting included land once connected with farming, helping explain the significance of the buildings beyond the structures themselves. The Inspector found that the proposed new housing would erode that rural setting and introduce an intrusive modern residential form.
The resulting harm to the significance of the listed buildings was assessed as moderate, but it attracted considerable importance and weight under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The benefits from eight homes did not outweigh the heritage harm. Separate design concerns reinforced the refusal.
The Inspector also found that the proposed drainage approach was not sufficiently tested. The greenfield development would introduce impermeable surfaces, but no infiltration testing had been completed and the sustainable drainage assessment was too preliminary to show that off-site runoff could be controlled. Conditions could not safely substitute for the necessary design evidence.
Housing shortfall and biodiversity gain did not rescue the scheme
Tandridge’s housing land supply was very poor, at around two years, and its housing delivery record was also deficient. Eight additional homes therefore offered a genuine benefit. However, all eight would be large four-bedroom houses, rather than a range of sizes. That created a housing mix conflict to which the Inspector gave limited weight in view of the shortfall.
The Inspector did not find a proven failure to comply with statutory biodiversity net gain. An updated metric and off-site delivery mechanism could potentially be addressed through the Biodiversity Gain Plan process. Our irreplaceable habitat guidance explains why this ordinary gain mechanism is separate from avoiding harm to ancient woodland.
The final planning balance for the grey belt appeal was nevertheless adverse. The combined harm to protected habitat, bats, listed-building settings, local character and drainage outweighed the benefits of additional homes. National policies directing refusal of development in certain circumstances remained important even though the Green Belt objection itself had been overcome.
Appeal 6010654, relating to Tandridge application TA/2025/1223, was dismissed by Inspector Jane Smith on 12 November 2026. This outcome concerns the specific design and evidence; it does not mean every application for homes on grey belt land near woodland must fail.
0 Comments