Nine Smallfield homes proposed behind Streathbourne House on Redehall Road, Surrey, have lost a planning appeal despite agreement that the land is grey belt. Inspector H Miles dismissed appeal 6005184 on 15th October 2026, refusing the housing scheme because of its effect on the surrounding rural character.
The proposal involved detached and semi-detached houses, parking and landscaping after demolition of existing annexes. It concerned garden land behind a road-fronting property, with open countryside beyond. The appeal followed Tandridge District Council’s failure to determine application 2025/731 within the prescribed period.
I would pay attention to what did, and did not, cause the refusal. The Smallfield homes were not rejected as inappropriate Green Belt development, and the Inspector accepted that biodiversity gain could be secured. The decisive problem was the bulk of the proposed buildings close to the countryside boundary, which the housing benefits did not overcome.
Why the Smallfield homes lost
The original decision describes the rear of the plot as mainly open garden land with outbuildings. Fields beyond it contribute an attractive rural character. The assessment therefore concerned the transition between domestic development and open land, rather than simply whether housing existed nearby.
The Inspector recognised a mixture of development patterns around Redehall Road. Large detached houses with generous gardens form part of the traditional character, but development behind frontage properties also exists, including at Geary Close and on the opposite side of the road.
The principle of building behind the frontage was therefore not inherently out of keeping. Nor would adding nine homes, relative to the size of Smallfield, alter the settlement’s character in itself. The proposed plots were smaller and closer together than some traditional properties, but had similarities with other nearby housing.
The Smallfield homes nevertheless failed because of the treatment of the rear edge. A private garden, parking spaces and the side elevation of a two-storey house would sit close to the countryside boundary. There was limited room for planting next to the building and parking.
The Inspector found that the side elevation’s bulk would remain pronounced even if a future resident planted the garden boundary. This would create a stark transition from urban built form to open countryside. Although the effect would be localised, it was still harmful.
Grey belt was accepted, but design still mattered
Tandridge concluded that the site was grey belt and met the relevant exception under national Green Belt policy. The Inspector agreed. As a result, the proposed development was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
That finding was an important step for the Smallfield homes, but did not settle the application. The Inspector still had to assess the scheme against other national decision-making policies and the development plan, including the requirements for good design and a response to the site’s setting.
The decision found conflict with local policies CSP18 and DP7, which seek development that respects character, setting and landscape context. It also found that national design Policy DP3 was not satisfied. The Inspector identified no clear justification for the harmful design.
I would treat the distinction as central for anyone assessing a grey belt opportunity. A favourable Green Belt assessment does not establish that a particular layout, building size or boundary relationship is acceptable. Those matters still need a convincing design response.
Housing need attracted substantial weight
The Smallfield homes were considered against a serious housing undersupply. The decision records that Tandridge could demonstrate 1.92 years of deliverable housing sites and that its most recent Housing Delivery Test measurement was 38%.
The Inspector gave substantial weight to the social and economic benefits of nine additional homes, including temporary construction benefits. The decision therefore does not dismiss the importance of housing need or suggest it carried no weight.
There were also potential benefits from biodiversity gain and sustainable transport improvements. But their scale was modest. Taken together, the benefits were found substantially outweighed by the serious adverse effects associated with the harm to character and appearance.
The decision describes the proposed relationship with the countryside as “visually jarring”. That local design judgement ultimately mattered more than the fact that other development existed behind road-fronting properties nearby.
Biodiversity gain was not a reason to dismiss
The Inspector took a different view of the biodiversity issue. The decision explains that the mandatory biodiversity gain requirement could be addressed through the standard condition and approval of a biodiversity gain plan before commencement.
On-site measures, off-site provision or biodiversity credits could potentially provide the required gain. The Inspector considered that necessary details and securing arrangements could be resolved through that process. It would therefore be inappropriate to dismiss this appeal on the basis that the gain objective would not be met.
That finding helped the Smallfield homes on one issue, but the limited detail about how and where gains would be delivered meant biodiversity attracted limited weight as a benefit. It did not answer the separate objection to the layout’s effect at the rural boundary.
Highways and the practical lesson
The council had indicated highway concerns about upgrading nearby bus stops and reducing the speed limit along this part of the road to 20mph. Suggested conditions were accepted by the appellant during the appeal, and this was no longer a main disputed point.
The Inspector found those matters could be made acceptable on the submitted evidence. The potential improvements would also benefit existing residents, including through slower traffic around the school. However, because permission was refused, the appeal did not grant a conditioned housing approval.
For a revised proposal, I would start with the reason that actually defeated this scheme: the amount and position of built form at the countryside edge. More general arguments about housing supply or grey belt status would not, by themselves, address that design finding.
Our Westerleigh homes appeal report provides another recent example of accepted grey belt status alongside an unsuccessful housing appeal. Here, the refusal relates to this nine-home layout and the evidence before the Inspector, rather than a blanket rejection of every possible development on the land.
0 Comments