Previously developed land in the Green Belt can accommodate three new homes at South Holmwood in Surrey after a planning Inspector allowed an appeal on 5 November 2026. The decision gives permission in principle, rather than detailed planning permission, for housing within the grounds of a large existing property near Dorking.
The appeal concerns Scamells Corner on Red Lane, where Mole Valley District Council refused an application for three proposed rural-style homes under reference MO/2026/00198 on 18 March 2026. Inspector F Leung overturned that refusal in appeal 6012971 after considering the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework and the adopted Mole Valley Local Plan.
The important finding was not that every rural garden can be built on. Instead, the Inspector concluded that this particular tennis court, driveway and surrounding residential curtilage qualified as previously developed land. The development was therefore considered under the Green Belt brownfield exception, not the separate grey belt route.
Why previously developed land included the garden
The appeal site forms part of the grounds of Scamells Corner, a large two-storey house outside any defined settlement boundary. The wider property includes outbuildings, a tennis court, driveway, lawns and other recreational space. The proposed houses would occupy part of that established residential setting, rather than extend into the woodland and fields beyond it.
The Council disputed whether all the appeal land could count as previously developed land. National policy includes land lawfully occupied by permanent structures and associated fixed-surface infrastructure, together with their curtilage, but specifically excludes residential gardens in built-up areas. This garden was outside a built-up area, a distinction that mattered to the Inspector’s assessment.
The Inspector found no substantive evidence that the appeal site fell outside the residential curtilage of the dwelling. It was within the same gated enclosure as the dwelling, shared its driveway, and included part of the existing tennis court. A physical and functional relationship with the main house was therefore central to the conclusion.
The Framework cautions against assuming that all curtilage may be developed merely because it falls within the definition. The Inspector explained that this qualification does not remove genuine curtilage from the definition of previously developed land
. It means that the suitability of building on any particular part still needs to be considered.
This distinction is easy to miss. A finding of previously developed land does not automatically grant planning permission. It determines which development-plan and national policy tests apply. Our guide to previously developed land explains the definition, its exclusions and why curtilage can be decisive for rural schemes.
Green Belt openness and the tennis court
Under policy GB7(1)(e) of the August 2026 Framework, redevelopment of previously developed land is not inappropriate Green Belt development where it would not cause substantial harm to openness. The Mole Valley Local Plan also required a comparison with the existing impact on openness. The Inspector considered both tests rather than treating either as a formality.
The three proposed dwellings would add buildings, gardens, driveways, parking areas and normal domestic activity. That would change the site in both spatial and visual terms. However, the existing houses, tennis court, hardstanding, substantial hedges and mature trees already influenced the character of this part of the Green Belt.
Much of the appeal site sat lower than Red Lane and was largely screened. It would remain within an established cluster of residential properties, without spreading development into adjacent open countryside or woodland. The Inspector found that three homes could be accommodated with limited visual effect and no greater impact on openness than the existing development.
Previously developed land was therefore the relevant Green Belt route. The Inspector found that the proposal would not constitute inappropriate development under national policy or the local plan. That conclusion removed the need to demonstrate very special circumstances, a test that would otherwise be central to many Green Belt proposals.
Why grey belt and car dependence did not defeat it
Mole Valley had also questioned whether future residents would rely heavily on cars because walking, cycling and public transport connections were limited. Those concerns had been advanced in the context of the Framework’s separate grey belt provisions. But the Inspector had already identified a different exception for previously developed land under GB7(1)(e).
As a result, the Inspector did not need to establish whether the site met the sustainable-location requirements associated with the grey belt route. The decision still considered car dependence in the alternative, finding that three homes would generate relatively few additional journeys and would not result in material harm in this setting.
The point is practical for applicants: different Green Belt exceptions have different conditions. It is not enough to say a site is in the Green Belt and then apply every policy test indiscriminately. A proposal must be assessed against the particular exception on which it relies, alongside the remaining development-plan policies and material considerations.
Permission in principle is only the first stage
Another important limitation is the type of consent. The Inspector granted permission in principle for precisely three dwellings, not approval of the submitted indicative layout or designs. Under this procedure, the decision addresses location, land use and the amount of development, with detailed design and other matters considered at the subsequent technical details consent stage.
Concerns about highway safety, access, ecology, biodiversity, noise and landscaping remain capable of being examined when detailed proposals come forward. The Inspector was satisfied that the evidence did not show any of those issues would prevent three homes from being designed acceptably in principle. That is not a finding that every detail already complies.
The Council suggested conditions in the event of an allowed appeal. However, the Inspector noted Planning Practice Guidance stating that conditions cannot be attached to a permission in principle. The developer must obtain the necessary technical details consent before implementing the scheme, and conditions may be considered at that later stage as permitted by the procedure.
For landowners considering housing on extensive rural residential grounds, this previously developed land decision highlights the value of evidence on the lawful curtilage, existing hardstanding and visual relationship with neighbouring development. A tennis court alone would not settle the argument. Here it formed part of a much broader, connected assessment of the property.
The decision is also a reminder to distinguish the exclusion of gardens in built-up areas from the treatment of rural curtilage. The distinction can make a substantial difference to the Green Belt starting point, but it must be supported by site-specific facts. The Inspector did not establish a general right to subdivide rural gardens.
The appeal was determined by Inspector F Leung on 5 November 2026 under reference 6012971. The original application was MO/2026/00198. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments