A Tilford home has won permission in principle after a planning inspector overturned Waverley Borough Council’s refusal of a proposal at Loxleigh Lodge on The Reeds Road, near Farnham in Surrey. The decision, issued on 14th October 2026, accepts the principle of one new dwelling within an existing residential plot in the Green Belt and Surrey Hills National Landscape.
The permission establishes that the location, residential use and amount of development are acceptable. It does not approve a final house design or allow building to start without the next consent. The proposal would involve demolishing existing outbuildings, with the detailed scheme still to be assessed.
I would pay particular attention to how the inspector approached the rural location. Walking routes were imperfect and cycling would not suit everyone, but nearby services, bookable bus services and the limited extra journeys from one house helped the proposal clear that hurdle. That is useful reasoning for small rural sites, provided the actual evidence supports it.
Why the Tilford home passed the location test
Inspector S McIntyre considered appeal 6011929 against application PIP/2026/00527. The site lies outside a defined settlement boundary, within a small group of homes. Waverley’s policies required a proportionate assessment of sustainable transport, taking account of a development’s location and the number of journeys it would generate.
The nearby Squires Garden Centre mattered because it offered more than plants. The inspector recorded a food hall, café and a range of everyday food shopping. Commercial premises at Pierrepont Farm also provided some employment opportunities within walking distance. These were specific local facilities rather than an assumption that any rural shop would be sufficient.
There were clear weaknesses. The route towards Millbridge and its bus stops included a narrow, uneven permissive path, a short gap requiring pedestrians to use the carriageway and a road crossing with restricted visibility. The inspector found it unsuitable for pushchairs or buggies and unattractive for many walking trips.
The Tilford home nevertheless benefited from undisputed evidence that Surrey Connect and Waverley Hoppa Community demand responsive bus services served the site. Residents could book particular journeys, including connections to local services and bus stops. The decision assessed those options alongside the low number of movements expected from one dwelling.
Cyclists seen during the site visit did not settle the issue. The inspector recognised that the road’s 40mph limit and restricted visibility could discourage less experienced riders. The overall conclusion was that accessibility was satisfactory for this small proposal in its rural setting, rather than that every route was comfortable or accessible to everyone.
Grey belt and the existing residential plot
The Tilford home would occupy part of Loxleigh Lodge’s residential curtilage, which already contains ancillary structures, including the Fossil Shed. The inspector treated the site as previously developed land. An important detail was that this small group of houses did not constitute a built-up area for the relevant exclusion of residential gardens from that definition.
The decision also records agreement that the site did not strongly contribute to the relevant Green Belt purposes and would not fundamentally undermine the remaining Green Belt across the plan area. Waverley could demonstrate only 1.28 years of deliverable housing land, which the inspector considered clear evidence of unmet housing need.
Having accepted the transport position, the inspector concluded that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. These findings depended on the particular plot and proposal. A residential garden elsewhere does not acquire the same planning status simply because its owner describes it as grey belt.
The Surrey Hills still required a separate assessment
The Tilford home also had to be acceptable within the Surrey Hills National Landscape and the locally designated Area of Great Landscape Value. The inspector considered the existing residential activity, nearby garden centre and limited public views. The site was barely noticeable in a distant view towards the existing buildings.
Detailed siting, scale, landscaping and lighting remained for the technical details stage. There was scope for further planting within the plot, and the inspector considered that ongoing maintenance conditions could secure screening without relying on trees outside the site. The evidence did not show that a satisfactory design could not be achieved.
That distinction matters. The inspector was not approving every feature of the illustrative layout. The decision considered whether one dwelling could be accommodated acceptably, while recognising the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the protected landscape.
What the decision actually permits
The full official decision grants permission in principle for a minimum and maximum of one dwelling. As the inspector put it, the site was suitable having regard to its “location, the proposed land use and the amount of development”.
The Tilford home must therefore return for technical details consent. I would read the decision as a clear first-stage success with further work ahead on the house and its effects, rather than a finished permission ready for construction. For another example of that distinction, the Guiseley homes appeal also concerned permission in principle.
The Tilford home proposal produced no significant adverse effects in the inspector’s assessment. He gave weight to meeting housing need and making better use of underused land, and allowed the appeal. The decision letter contains no separate costs determination.
0 Comments