Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 27 - 30 January and 5 February 2026 Site visit made on 3 February 2026 by Phillip J G Ware BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21st May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham KT11 3QH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Cobham Road Solar Farm Ltd against the decision of Mole Valley District Council. • The application Ref is MO/2024/1048 • The development proposed is the installation of a ground mounted solar photovoltaic array together with associated infrastructure, stock fencing, CCTV, access gates, on-site biodiversity net gain and associated works. Decision 1.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of a ground mounted solar photovoltaic array together with associated infrastructure, stock fencing, CCTV, access gates, on-site biodiversity net gain and associated works on land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Bookham KT11 3QH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref MO/2024/1048, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. A final draft s106 agreement was discussed during the inquiry. As agreed, a signed version was submitted after the close of the Inquiry. Draft conditions were discussed prior to and during the inquiry, and a final agreed version was submitted after the close of the Inquiry. I have taken account of these matters. 3. A negative EIA screening direction was issued by the Council on 26 February 2024. This stated that the proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the environment and that a statutory Environmental Impact Assessment was not required. I have no reason to disagree. 4. Following the refusal of planning permission the appellant sought to make two changes to the scheme considered by the Council.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council These relate to enhanced hedgerow planting and the realignment of a fence line. These are changes are minor in nature, have been the subject of consultation, and would not result in a proposal which is substantially different to that considered by the Council. I do not consider the interests of any party would be prejudiced by these changes and have considered them accordingly. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council These relate to enhanced hedgerow planting and the realignment of a fence line. These are changes are minor in nature, have been the subject of consultation, and would not result in a proposal which is substantially different to that considered by the Council. I do not consider the interests of any party would be prejudiced by these changes and have considered them accordingly. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 Main Issues 5. The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area • The effect of the proposal on the setting of heritage assets • The extent of renewable energy and related benefits • Whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework ('the Framework') Reasons The proposal and its context 6. The site is around 52 ha in extent, made of 12 field parcels, and is to the west and south of Cobham. At the nearest point it is about 250 metres south of the M25, with the River Mole to the north and east. Source - DAS 7. The proposal is as described in the heading to this decision and comprises a development of up to 49.5MW of ground mounted solar panels. The proposal is for a limited period of 40 years. The grid connection, which is not part of the proposal, is the Leatherhead Substation, which is around 2kms from the site. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 8. The proposal includes around 335m of enhanced hedgerow planting and additional planting. The solar arrays would be arranged in a generally linear manner, and there would be equipment cabins and other operational feature on the site. The top edge of the panels would be up to 3m above ground level, with a lower edge around 1 metre above ground level, to allow for the intended sheep grazing beneath. A 2m high deer fence would surround the field boundaries, in addition to which there would be 2.5m pole mounted CCTV cameras at intervals along the inside edge of the fencing – facing inwards. 9. Access to the site is from Cobham Road. A public footpath (13) crosses the site – this route winds between some of the field parcels and is around 1.3km in length. 10. Most of the site is within Flood Zone (FZ) 1, with part of the northeastern areas in FZ 2 and 3. None of the solar panels would be within these latter areas, which would however include some ecological enhancement. 11. There are no statutory or non-statutory designated ecological sites within the site.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council The land is within the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Impact Risk Zone for Bookham Commons SSSI, Epsom and Ashtead Commons SSSI, Esher Commons SSSI, Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment SSSI and Ockham and Wisley SSSI. 12. There are no designated or non-designated heritage assets within or immediately abutting the site. I will deal with other assets in the area below. Policy position and agreed matters 13. The development plan includes the Mole Valley Local Plan (LP) 2020-2039 (adopted 2024). As set out in the Council’s reasons for refusal, the main LP policies in this case are: • Landscape character - Policies EN8, EN4 and S2 (which deals with the appropriate response to the climate emergency). • Heritage assets – LP policy EN6. • Green Belt – LP policy EN1. 14. In addition the Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) identifies an agreed range of other policies which have a bearing on the proposal, along with national policy particularly in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 15.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council There are a number of matters agreed between the appellants and the Council, which provide a useful background to the consideration of the main issues1: • The site and the landscape features within it are not part of a designed or designated landscape. • The site is not a valued landscape as defined in the Framework. • Any adverse landscape effects would not be permanent, as the proposal is for a 40 year period, after which the site would be decommissioned and restored 1 Others are set out in the SOCG https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council There are a number of matters agreed between the appellants and the Council, which provide a useful background to the consideration of the main issues1: • The site and the landscape features within it are not part of a designed or designated landscape. • The site is not a valued landscape as defined in the Framework. • Any adverse landscape effects would not be permanent, as the proposal is for a 40 year period, after which the site would be decommissioned and restored 1 Others are set out in the SOCG https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 • Long term planting is proposed to be retained after decommissioning, resulting in a lasting landscape effect and long-term benefits to biodiversity. • The fields within the site could accommodate sheep grazing within the security fencing and beneath the panels for the duration of the lifetime of the project. • There is a demonstrable unmet need for renewable energy development in the UK. • The reasons for refusal do not include residential or visual amenity. Conditions can address noise and disturbance, and glint and glare to residential properties. • The proposal has been the subject of an archaeological assessment. The reasons for refusal do not include archaeology, and any archaeological interest could be addressed by a condition. • The principle of renewable energy development in the countryside is supported in principle. • The site within the Green Belt. • The site is in a sustainable location in relation to traffic movements and sustainable travel modes. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area 16. The Council confirmed at the Inquiry that there is no in principle objection to the siting of this sort of development in the countryside.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council In addition the authority agreed that the availability to a grid connection (a matter to which I will return later) was an important element in identifying this particular site for the development. The difference between the main and other parties therefore relates to any harm caused by this particular scheme in this particular location. 17. The fact that the site is agreed not to be ‘valued’ in terms of Framework paragraph 187 and is not a protected landscape at any level does not mean that local people do not ascribe value to it. 18. The appeal site is within National Character Area 114, the Thames Basin Lowlands. It is important to note that nowhere in that wide designation can be considered as tranquil, as agreed by the parties. More locally the site is within the Wooded Rolling Clayland Landscape and the Ockham and Clandon Wooded Rolling Clayland. The Mole Valley Landscape Supplementary Planning Document (2013) is relevant and notes, amongst other matters, that the M25 is a major feature in the landscape and that noise from the motorway affects the character and tranquillity of the landscape. 19.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council The appeal site and the immediate area has a gentle gradient, but from the evidence and my site visits, this is not a significant factor in the character of the area. Particularly as one walks through the site on Footpath 13, and to the limited extent to which the site can be viewed from a wider area, the site is characterised by the shapes of the fields and how they are enclosed. Some of the enclosure is by way of hedges, gappy in places, and in some places by tree lines. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council The appeal site and the immediate area has a gentle gradient, but from the evidence and my site visits, this is not a significant factor in the character of the area. Particularly as one walks through the site on Footpath 13, and to the limited extent to which the site can be viewed from a wider area, the site is characterised by the shapes of the fields and how they are enclosed. Some of the enclosure is by way of hedges, gappy in places, and in some places by tree lines. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 20. In the vicinity of the appeal site, which is undeveloped, there are a number of elements of built form. Some of these are the heritage assets to which I return below, along with a farmstead (Slyfield Farm) in a poor state of repair, and a sewage works. Particularly in relation to the presence of the nearby M25, I agree with the Council’s heritage witness who agreed at the inquiry that the site is not tranquil. 21. I now turn to the viewpoints agreed by all parties – all of which I visited either before and/or after the inquiry. 22. I will deal first with the various viewpoints along Footpath 13, as it winds through the site. From these viewpoints the character of the area would experience some change as – despite the existing and proposed planting - the development would be seen in places. It would not be noted in the sense of wider panoramic views, but there would be places where glimpses of the arrays, deer fencing and security cameras would be visible. 23. This would be the case to a decreasing extent as the new planting matures and by Year 15 the appellant’s persuasive evidence is that the effect on the landscape would be negligible.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council I agree with that assessment – and it must also be remembered that any effect would be time limited. 24. Given that Footpath 13 is not entirely free of built form, it is clear that the landscape as considered from the footpath would retain its essential characteristic of a hedged lane and any effect would be limited. 25. Moving further afield, the Council considers that the effect on the landscape would be experienced from around 2 km to the north and 1.5km to the east. I visited these locations, and even allowing from the more elevated viewpoints to the north, I consider that extent of visibility of the site, and therefore of the proposal, is very limited indeed. Given the limited height of the proposal and the difficulty in locating the site at a distance (leaving aside those viewpoints where the site cannot realistically be seen) the effect on the wider landscape would be negligible. 26. There was an argument advanced by the Council that there would be an effect on views from the footpath towards the Surrey Hills and the wooded ridgeline between Cobham and Oxshott. Given the distances involved I find this suggestion to be entirely unjustified.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council It is also surprising that this was not mentioned in the reasons for refusal. 27. Before concluding on the effect on the character and appearance of the area, there are four matters which need to be briefly addressed. 28. Firstly it is noted that neither residential nor visual amenity formed part of the Council’s reasons for refusal, although some oblique references to this matter were made in evidence. In any event any effect on visual amenity would be very localised and limited. 29. Secondly the landscape witnesses for the two parties adopted different approaches to the assessment. In particular the Council’s approach did not utilise existing Landscape Character Areas, but defined a separate area. In principle I do not have a particular issue with this approach, although I do prefer the GLVIA approach which looks at the full extent of the wider landscape. But I note that some of the existing landscape detractors were omitted from the Council’s study https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 area. This approach also placed the landscape value in an unrealistically high category. 30. Thirdly the proposal is for a limited period and is reversible. Although a 40 year period is a long time in human terms, that is not the case in relation to landscape effects. No evidence was presented to question these matters. Conversely it was evidenced that the proposed planting which would remain after decommissioning would be a moderate benefit. 31. Fourthly there was some discussion as to the extent of wider glint and glare effect on the landscape. However this effect, to the very limited extent that it was alleged, is far from central to this issue and the matter was comprehensively addressed by the appellant’s Glint and Glare Study. I will return to this matter briefly in dealing with Sheepbell Farmhouse below. 32. In conclusion I concur with the appellant’s clear evidence that the site is of medium value, susceptibility and sensitivity. This was based on a persuasive GLVIA2 compliant analysis of the landscape. 33. The proposed development would be relatively low level, and the extensive scale of the proposal would be broken by existing and proposed vegetation.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council There would be virtually no effect on topography. From the evidence it is clear that the proposal has been carefully designed to minimise its visual impact. Additionally it would be virtually silent and pollution free and, after the construction period, would generate very little maintenance traffic. 34. Although there would obviously be a change from the existing fields to a solar farm – and I do not find the various descriptions of solar farms particularly helpful – I do not find that it would be the type of development which would be particularly out of place in a modern agricultural landscape. The scheme allows for the retention of the existing field patterns and additional planting, which would be in keeping with the local landscape. 35. Overall, there would be limited and localised time-limited harm to the surrounding landscape, diminishing over time as the mitigation planting matures. For that reason the proposal conflicts with LP Policies EN8, EN4, which deal with matters only in the most general terms. LP policy S2 is the only one which deals with renewable energy, and is supportive of developments such as the appeal proposal. The effect of the proposal on the setting of heritage assets 36.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special regard should be had to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings. Considerable weight and importance must be given to any harm caused to designated assets in the planning balance, including any harm to the setting of a listed building. 37. The Framework sets out that where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I shall carry out the heritage balance later in the decision. 2 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special regard should be had to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings. Considerable weight and importance must be given to any harm caused to designated assets in the planning balance, including any harm to the setting of a listed building. 37. The Framework sets out that where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I shall carry out the heritage balance later in the decision. 2 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 38. There are several designated heritage assets that could be affected by the proposal. Unusually the Council’s reason for refusal did not identify the specific assets said to be affected, although this was set out in the Statement of Common Ground. The assets identified below are agreed to be those with the potential to be affected by the proposal. Each one is assessed individually below, and I refer to the spectrum of harm for the designated assets on a scale of low, moderate and high. However before considering each individually, it is useful to set out a number of background matters – both those agreed and those in dispute – to avoid repetition. 39. Those matters wholly agreed between the Council and the appellant are: • The proposal would not cause any direct physical harm to the fabric of any designated heritage asset. It is common ground that the greatest contribution to the significance of the assets is through their physical fabric. • The setting of the assets may contribute to their significance (although the level of any harm was not agreed). • Setting is not a purely visual concept and the visibility of a proposal does not necessarily give rise to significance.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council • Any harm that is identified would be less than substantial. • Historic England has not objected to the proposal. 40. There are also a number of matters on which there is no agreement or not total agreement, but which are common to the effect on all the assets. I set out my conclusions on these matters in the bullet points below: • The area of the appeal site and beyond is modern agricultural farmland, and it does not display any remaining medieval landscape features – for example there is no evidence of ridge and furrow. It is agreed that there has been a notable loss of internal boundary features. • Any historical or functional association between the appeal site and the heritage assets could only be appreciated with reference to historic records. Even such an association would be by way of inference rather than direct evidence. This was not entirely accepted by the Council – although the authority did not clearly explain how any association could be appreciated on the ground. (I come back to this matter below.) • When considering the level of harm the fact that the proposal is for a 40 year period and is reversible is relevant.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Although 40 years is a long period in human terms, it is a short period in terms of the life of the assets. This was not entirely accepted by the Council. • The proposal would not generate and significant noise or traffic during the operational phase – this was accepted by the Council. I consider that traffic during the construction phase could be controlled by condition and would, in any event, be at such a distance from the assets that it would not cause harm. • The Council at one point seemed to be accumulating harm to individual assets, to reach a global amount of harm. I have approached any harm on an https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Although 40 years is a long period in human terms, it is a short period in terms of the life of the assets. This was not entirely accepted by the Council. • The proposal would not generate and significant noise or traffic during the operational phase – this was accepted by the Council. I consider that traffic during the construction phase could be controlled by condition and would, in any event, be at such a distance from the assets that it would not cause harm. • The Council at one point seemed to be accumulating harm to individual assets, to reach a global amount of harm. I have approached any harm on an https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 individual asset basis, although the number of affected assets could be a relevant consideration in determining the weight to be given to the overall harm to the historic environment. Slyfield Manor and attached garden walls (Grade I) 41. Slyfield Manor apparently dates from the 16th century or earlier, was remodelled and brick-clad in the 17th century and subsequently reduced and altered. It aligns on an east-west axis with the main elevation facing south. 42. It sits in a well-defined plot with its neighbours, and with farmland and woodland in the wider area. The access is, and appears to have always have been, from the west – away from the appeal site. There is no evidence of designed views from or towards the building, to judge from the extensive historic mapping which has been provided. The main elevation of the building towards the south appears to have always been over an open landscape. 43. The significance of the asset is mainly in its physical fabric – particularly including the internal 17th century decoration, and the external detailed brickwork. The setting of the asset contributes to its significance, though to a much lesser extent than the physical features.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council The external decorative elements of the building, which are particularly fine, were clearly designed to impress, but at close quarters. In particular the open ground to the south close to the property allows an appreciation of the exterior of the building. 44. Turning to the contribution of the appeal site to the significance of the asset, it appears that there may have been a historic land ownership association although, as referenced above, this can no longer be appreciated on the ground. The Council’s largely unsupported position is the appeal site was cleared for farmland at the time when the Manor was established – but even assuming this to be the case, the association cannot now be understood on the ground. 45. However the link between the agricultural land and the assets related to the former manorial holding can be understood beyond documentary record. The association of agriculturally related buildings such as barns and farmhouses can be understood in relation to the land to which they were functionally and socio- economically related. This is particularly the case in relation to a manorial complex, the manor being the centre of the socio-economic and cultural purpose of the land that it managed.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council The profit from the land was expressed in the aspirational architecture of the main buildings. 46. Glimpses of the building can be obtained from some locations along Footpath 13 outside the appeal site – although none of these provides a clear unobstructed view of the main façade of the Manor. Knowing the location of the Manor, I was able to see, or in some cases estimate, the location of the asset from few positions. A glimpse of the Manor can be obtained close to Field 3 – but this is not a view which illustrates any of the elements of significance. There are other distant views of the Manor from other locations in the area – but these are not public. There used to be a substantial cedar tree at the Manor, which has had to be felled comparatively recently. The Council accepted the original planting of this tree to be evidence of a historic desire to screen views of the Manor. 47. Conversely oblique glimpses of Field 1 on the appeal site can be obtained from the upper floor southwest facing windows (only). The Council accepted at the Inquiry https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 that these views are incidental and this view is filtered by planting and has open fields in front of the appeal site. 48. Overall, the appeal site makes a very minor contribution to the setting of the Manor solely by reason of the assumed historic land ownership. 49. I turn now to the effect of the proposal on the aspects which the setting makes to significance. There would be no effect on the exceptional internal features or to the external features of the building. The ability to view the asset in an open setting would be unchanged. Within the appeal site itself there would be a change from open agricultural land to land including solar arrays. As the arrays would sit on top of the land, the previous historical association would be largely unaffected, and the oblique, filtered and distant views would not harm the understanding of the historic setting of the asset – to the extent that it could be understood. 50. Concerns over construction traffic over a short period are unsupported – especially as large agricultural vehicles are agreed to currently use this route.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council This would have no effect on the setting or character of the asset – especially in a location already affected to a significant extent by the impact of the M25. 51. It should be noted that the National Trust has a covenant on the Manor to control development in the covenanted area – but this does not include the appeal site. This matter illustrates the importance of the building but does not otherwise inform this issue. 52. In conclusion the proposal would cause a temporary less than substantial harm at the lower end of the scale due to a change to part of the asset’s setting, and as it would slightly reduce the significance of the understanding of the historic setting of the asset. Slyfield Farmhouse and attached walls (Grade 1) 53. This building was formerly part of the overall Slyfield complex and, like the Manor was altered and reclad at around the same time. It is clad in red brick with some flint and has a main elevation facing north. It is noteworthy that the asset has undergone numerous alterations over the years, and that none of the windows are original and a number of new openings have been formed. The building was used for agricultural purposes for many years. 54.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council The present entrance faces away from the appeal site, and is approached from the main road to the west. 55. The significance of the asset is primarily related to its physical form, which demonstrates surviving 15th-century fabric and the 17th century brick cladding, along with changing use and form over the centuries. Although clad in scaffolding at the time of my visit, the detailing, similar to the Manor, could be observed. The evidence is that there is also some interest in internal features, though I was not able to observe this – but this would be unaffected by the proposal. 56. The most important element of the setting of this asset is the immediate gardens around the building, from which the architecture of the building can be appreciated. 57. As with the Manor, there is probably some historic association with the appeal site through land ownership. Even though this is physically and functionally long gone, there is some potential for understanding the relationship, as set out above in https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 relation to the Manor. In terms of views from this asset, it is noted that the elevation which faces the appeal site is blank. When moving along the footpath which runs through the site, there are no views of the Farmhouse. Whilst I fully accept that significance does not equate to views, this matter does reduce the appreciation of the asset from the site. 58. There would be no effect on the historic fabric of the asset, no diminution of the contribution which this asset makes to the overall grouping, and no change to most important areas of the setting of the building. These factors lead me to the conclusion that the proposal would cause a temporary less than substantial harm at the lowest end of the scale, due to the slight reduction of the understanding of the historic setting of the asset In that I differ very slightly with the appellant, who considered that there would be no harm to the significance of the asset. Slyfield Outbuildings and Barn (Grade II) 59. The Barn dates from 1806 and features a weatherboarded timber frame and a prominent red tiled roof. 60.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council The Outbuildings were added to the complex in the early 19th century, is of similar appearance and was added to the listing for group value. The Outbuildings include a notable buttressed wall. Recent alterations have landscaped their surroundings and, though one can recognise their original agricultural use, they are entirely residential in use and appearance. 61. Access is from Cobham Road, and brief glimpses of the buildings can be obtained from the right of way to the north. From that direction, the only public area from which these buildings can be seen, one can appreciate the buildings as part of the group. 62. The significance of the buildings related to their physical fabric, which illustrates their historic agricultural function. They were never intended to be viewed from outside their immediate setting, and there are no views to or from the appeal site. 63. As with other buildings in the Slyfield complex, there is some very limited historic contribution made by the appeal site to the significance of the asset.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council However given the distance from the appeal site and the intervening buildings and vegetation this association is only evidenced by researching historical records, and to a very limited extent by considering the previous role of the manor. 64. There would be no effect on the historic fabric of the asset, very slight diminution of the contribution which this asset makes to the overall grouping, and no change to most important areas of the setting of the building. These factors lead me to the conclusion that the proposal would cause a temporary less than substantial harm at the lowest end of the scale due to the slight reduction of the understanding of the historic setting of the asset. Again, I differ very slightly with the appellant, who considered that there would be no harm to the significance of the asset. Sheepbell Farmhouse (Grade II) 65. Sheepbell Farmhouse appears to be of late 17th century origin, with a number of later alterations and extensions. The main elevation faces west towards Cobham Road, away from the appeal site. As with other assets in the area it appears to have formerly been part of the Slyfield Estate. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 66. Although the boundaries of the asset’s plot have clearly changed over time, it has always been set in a secluded location. The main location in which the principal elevation can be experienced is from the west, with some very limited longer distance views of less important elevations. 67. The significance of the asset is principally in its architectural interest, relating to its survival as a 17th century farmhouse, albeit altered. There may be, as with other assets, a historic significance as part of the former estate – appreciated only by consideration of historic records and an understanding of the role of the entire manorial holding. 68. Some windows in the upper floor look towards the appeal site, and part of Field 7 would be visible and vice versa. It is noted that these are not public views. I observed a glimpsed view of the building from Footpath 13 running through the appeal site – however this view does not illustrate any of the key elements of the significance of the building. Although this view is limited it nonetheless contributes to a very limited extent to the significance of the asset. 69.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council The appeal scheme would not affect any of the major elements which go towards the significance of the asset. The relationship of the building and the other agricultural buildings would be unaffected. It is also noted that the appeal scheme proposes the reinstatement of historic boundaries in this vicinity, which is a benefit to the area and to the asset itself. 70. I return to the matter of glint and glare as it might affect the significance of this asset. The Glint and Glare Study specifically addressed the potential effect on this property and convincingly concluded that existing vegetation would significantly obstruct views of the panels, and that no impact was recorded nor was mitigation recommended. I am satisfied that there would be no effect on the significance of this asset as a result of this matter. 71. In conclusion the proposal would cause a temporary less than substantial harm at the lower end of the scale due to a change to part of the asset’s setting, as it would slightly reduce the understanding of the historic setting of the asset. Sheepbell Barn (Grade II) 72. This building is located around 50 metres from the Farmhouse, and dates from 1825.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council It is a timber framed building on a brick plinth, located in its own courtyard plot although, as before, originally forming part of the Slyfield estate. It does not appear as though it was ever designed to be appreciated from a wider area. 73. As before, the significance of the asset is predominantly related to its physical fabric. Its immediate courtyard setting provides an understanding of the original function of the building. 74. There are no public views of this asset. It may be possible to obtain a glimpsed view from the edge of Field 7 but this area is proposed to be a tree lined boundary. 75. There would be no effect on the historic fabric of the asset, no diminution of the contribution which this asset makes to its neighbour, and no change to most important areas of the setting of the building. These factors lead me to the conclusion that the proposal would cause a temporary less than substantial harm at the lowest end of the scale due to the slight reduction of the understanding of https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 the historic setting of the asset. In that I again differ very slightly with the appellant, who considered that there would be no harm to the significance of the asset. Heritage summary | In no case does the wider area around the assets make any great contribution | | --- | | to the main characteristics of the setting to the significance of the asset. The | | assets are all appreciated from much more localised areas and the wider | | setting makes very little, or no, contribution to the significance of the buildings. | setting makes very little, or no, contribution to the significance of the buildings.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council setting makes very little, or no, contribution to the significance of the buildings. | The proposal, set some distance away from the assets, would have only a very | | --- | | limited effect (in some cases) on the visual aspects which the wider setting | | makes. That said, I differ very slightly from the appellant in some cases in that | | although application of the historic links between the appeal site and the | | former estate is not readily apparent at all on the ground, I ascribe a slightly | | higher weight to the possibility that this could be understood by way of | | documentary research and an understanding of the history of manorial | | holdings. |

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council | The proposal, set some distance away from the assets, would have only a very | | --- | | limited effect (in some cases) on the visual aspects which the wider setting | | makes. That said, I differ very slightly from the appellant in some cases in that | | although application of the historic links between the appeal site and the | | former estate is not readily apparent at all on the ground, I ascribe a slightly | | higher weight to the possibility that this could be understood by way of | | documentary research and an understanding of the history of manorial | | holdings. |

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council holdings. 78. The reason for refusal refers to harm to the tranquil and rural setting of the assets. However the clear evidence was that the area is not tranquil as it exists – especially in view of the visual and aural effect of the motorway. The acceptance by the Council’s heritage witness that the site is not tranquil and that the assets would still be understood if the development went ahead did little to support the reason for refusal. Ther was very limited evidence that the proposed limited change to the wider setting of some assets, which are no longer functionally associated with any of the assets would cause any real harm to their heritage significance. 79. For the above reasons, in some instances I have concluded that the proposal is in conflict with LP policy EN6. I will return later to the balancing of the limited harm with the public benefits of the scheme. The extent of renewable energy and related benefits 80. This section is brief, but that in no way reduces the importance of the provision of renewable energy. Rather it reflects the considerable degree of agreement between all parties related to the importance of renewable energy and the relevance of a wide range of policies and guidance. 81.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council In this respect there is no dispute between the appellant and the Council that, as stated in the SOCG, there is a demonstrable need for renewable energy development in the UK. The Council further agreed at the inquiry that we are in the midst of a climate emergency and agreed the extent of the national challenge. 82. At the national planning level the Framework includes many references related to the need for renewable energy. Most directly paragraphs 161 and 165 deal with the need to increase the supply of renewable energy and the importance of considering suitable areas for renewable development – an approach not followed by this authority. At the local level, LP policy S2, whilst noting the need to minimise any potential adverse effects, deals with the need to combat the climate emergency. 83. There is a suite of policy and guidance at the national level – again as agreed in the SOCG – which is uncontested and does not need to be repeated here. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 12

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 Perhaps the most compelling statement is in the ‘Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener’ (2021) which references the need to deploy clean energy at an unprecedented scale and pace. 84. There was some limited discussion at the Inquiry as to whether the climate emergency and the need for domestic energy security were the same issue or distinct matters which could each be given separate weight. I have no doubt that the issues are distinct and that it would not be double counting to give both separate weight. 85. There is no local or national policy which requires the demonstration of a lack of alternative sites. As referenced above, the Council has not identified appropriate sites for renewable energy development in general, and did not put forward any alternatives at the Inquiry. It was agreed at the inquiry that there are no other alternative sites within a reasonable range of the grid connection point. 86. In this case there is an available grid connection. Given the accepted difficulty in establishing such connections within a short timeframe, it is important that where such connections exist they should be fully utilised.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council The Council’s position on this matter was originally that it should be accorded neutral weight, though this changed to significant weight at the Inquiry. In view of the policy imperatives, I consider this is a fair reflection of the position. 87. Given the national and local imperatives, along with policies in the Framework and the LP aimed at increasing the provision of renewable energy this matter must be accorded very substantial weight in the planning balance. Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt 88. It is clear that the changes to Green Belt policy in the most recently adopted version of the Framework were intended to increase the amount of development in certain circumstances within the area. This would be achieved by the concept of Grey Belt. 89. Grey Belt is defined as land which does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) as set out at Framework para.143. I will deal with each of these in turn. 90. Purpose (a) is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. The site is agreed to be open countryside and is not close to a large built up area. It therefore does not contribute to checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. 91.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Purpose (b) is to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. This is not engaged in this case as there are no neighbouring towns within a reasonable distance which might be affected by this proposal, 92. Finally purpose (d) deals with the preservation of the setting and special character of historic towns. This is not engaged in this case. 93. Before moving on from paragraph 143, it is noted that paragraph (c) deals with encroachment into the countryside. There is clearly a difference between the parties on this matter, as discussed in relation to landscape matters above. However it is common ground that such developments are inevitably located in rural areas and there are a number of matters specific to this proposal which reduce this policy conflict, as discussed elsewhere in this decision. In any event https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 13

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 this matter is specifically excluded from Grey Belt considerations. Nor is purpose (e) of paragraph 143, dealing with urban regeneration, engaged in this case. 94. In addition there are no matters which raise a strong reason for refusal in terms of Framework Footnote 7 – which would otherwise remove the site from Grey Belt. In particular I have dealt with heritage matters above and it is clear that the effect on heritage assets, taken together, comes nowhere near to providing a strong reason for refusal. 95. Framework paragraph 155 provides that development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all of three criteria apply. 96. The first criterion is that the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area. The proposal would only occupy an agreed figure of 0.26% of the Green Belt in Mole Valley, and the Council accepted at the Inquiry that the vast majority would be unaffected, and its purposes would not be fundamentally undermined.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council This is a matter of judgement but there is nothing to demonstrate that the proposal would affect the ability of the remaining area to serve the purposes of the Green Belt in a meaningful way. 97. The second criterion is that there should be a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. There is a proven and unmet need for low carbon energy. 98. The final criterion is that the development should be in a sustainable location, with reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. It is common ground that the proposal would not generate significant traffic movements in highway terms, even during the construction phase, and is in a sustainable location. 99. On that basis, I find that the appeal site is Grey Belt for the purpose of Framework policy and is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Other matters 100. In dealing with these matters, as earlier in this decision, I have accorded them weight on a scale from substantial, through significant and moderate, to limited. Effect on agricultural land 101. The site comprises a number of agricultural fields, covering an area of around 48 hectares.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council The overall proportion of the site which is defined as Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land is agreed to be 81.8%. 102. The SOCG confirms that there is no national or local planning policy requirement to demonstrate the lack of availability of alternative lower grade agricultural land in the local area. It is noted that an agricultural use, in the form of sheep grazing, would continue for the duration of the development, and that other agricultural uses could resume after decommissioning and restoration. 103. Furthermore, the main parties agree that the resting of the land from intensive arable use over the 40 year period would bring about a benefit in its own right in terms of soil health, organic carbon and organic matter. This was the subject of rebuttal evidence which was not challenged. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 14

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 104. For all these reasons, I do not consider that there would be any harm to agricultural land and accord this moderate positive weight. Flood Risk 105. There are small areas in the north of the site which are within Flood Zones 2 and 3, with the remainder being in Flood Zone 1. None of the solar arrays would be within the areas liable to flood, 106. I note that neither the Lead Local Flood Authority nor the Environment Agency have raised any objection to the proposal, subject to conditions (which I will deal with later) and that the Council has not objected to the proposal on this basis. This matter is neutral in the planning balance. Highways matters 107. Aside from the construction period, estimated to be around six months, the solar farm would generate around one maintenance visit each month, using small vehicles. 108. During the construction period (and the decommissioning phase) there would be more traffic. However the Highway Authority has reviewed the impact of the construction phase on the local and strategic highways network and concluded that, subject to conditions, the development would be acceptable in highway terms.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council No objection is raised by the Council in highways terms. 109. I have no evidence which leads me to a different conclusion and this matter is neutral in the planning balance. Ecology and Biodiversity 110. The Bushy Copse Ancient Woodland and Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) is located between fields 7, 10, 9 and 5. The site is also located within 200m of the Bookham Common Site of Special Scientific Importance (SSSI). There is no evidence of harmful effects on these protected areas. 111. This matter was the subject of evidence by local residents. In response, the appellant provided an Ecological Note detailing the assessments which had been undertaken. This was largely unchallenged. 112. As previously described existing habitats – largely trees and hedgerows - would be largely retained, and additional appropriate planting undertaken. This would be particularly be field boundaries and the footpath across the site. 113. The main parties have agreed the proposal would result in a BNG gain of 72.78% in habitats and 113.04% in hedgerows. These figures are far above the current statutory requirement. The Council does not oppose the proposal on this basis.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council I note that residents raised concerns with the current BNG metric. However this metric is nationally adopted and is referenced in Planning Practice Guidance. This appeal is not the appropriate place to challenge that approach. 114. Accordingly the main parties agree that that ecological and biodiversity effects can be appropriately dealt with dealt with by planning conditions, along with BNG monitoring in the s106 agreement. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 15

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council I note that residents raised concerns with the current BNG metric. However this metric is nationally adopted and is referenced in Planning Practice Guidance. This appeal is not the appropriate place to challenge that approach. 114. Accordingly the main parties agree that that ecological and biodiversity effects can be appropriately dealt with dealt with by planning conditions, along with BNG monitoring in the s106 agreement. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 15

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 115. The Council’s position is that this matter should only be accorded moderate weight, as it could occur in the absence of the scheme. However this has not happened to date and there is no realistic likelihood of this happening. On that basis I agree with the appellant that this matter should be accorded significant weight. Economic matters 116. The proposal would generate employment during the construction and decommissioning phases, although once the development was commissioned the employment would be very limited. There would also be economic benefits accruing from investment and diversification. 117. The Council initially gave this matter very little weight on the grounds that this benefit could occur elsewhere. However as a principle this is illogical, in circumstances where there is no suggestion of an alternative suitable site. In any event the Council increased their assessment of this benefit during the Inquiry, and I accord it moderate weight. Other appeal decisions 118. A considerable number of appeal decisions related to the approach taken in ostensibly similar cases were put before me.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council I have carefully considered each of these and the submissions made thereon, but they are of limited assistance. None relate to the appeal site itself and many are in very different areas, some have very different heritage impact (or none), the amount of landscape harm is variable as is the extent to which the sites typify and contribute to the landscape. The s106 obligation and conditions 119. A deed, dated 13 February 2026, has been entered into between the Council, the developer and the landowner. This deals with the BNG monitoring arrangements, in order to secure the BNG benefit discussed above. For this reason the Obligation meets the policy in paragraph 58 of the Framework and the tests in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. 120. The conditions set out in this decision have been discussed and agreed by the main parties. Those pre-commencement conditions have been agreed by the parties. I have made only minor typographical changes. They all meet the Framework tests in that they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. 121.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council A condition is necessary in order to limit the development to the submitted details [2] and to limit the use to a period of 40 years – as sought and in the interests of the longer term amenity of the area [3]. The export capacity needs to be controlled in line with the submitted proposal [24]. Various details need to be submitted and implemented - a Waste Management Pan in the interest of controlling the amount of waste and encouraging reuse [11]; and the Landscape Strategy Plan needs to be implemented [15]. 122. Various matters need to be undertaken before the development commences – a programme of archaeological work in the interests of identifying any heritage assets [4]; a new vehicular access in the interests of highway safety [5]; a Construction Transport Management Plan, also for highway reasons [6], https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 16

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 123. Given that a small part of the site is in an area liable to flood, a condition requiring mitigation measures is necessary [7]. To ensure that the proposal will not cause flooding, surface water drainage details need to be submitted [9, 10] 124. Conditions are necessary in the interests of the visual amenity and ecology of the area – including a lighting plan [8] and measures to protect trees [23]. 125. To ensure the achievement of Biodiversity Net Gain, which is one of the benefits of the proposal, details of the BNG need to be submitted [12, 13]. In addition, and similarly in the interests of ecology, a Construction and Environmental Management Plan needs to be submitted for approval [14, 16]; along with a Bat Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy [17] and details related to Invertebrates and Birds [18, 19] 126. One of the benefits of the proposal is the continuation of grazing on the site. To ensure this a condition is needed to require a Grazing Management Plan [25]. Planning balance and conclusion 127. As set out above, the proposal would utilise Grey Belt land as defined in the Framework and is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 128.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council There are a number of positive benefits accruing from the proposal, of which the national and local imperatives aimed at increasing the provision of renewable energy is the single most important matter. It would contribute to this approach and improve energy resilience. These matters must be accorded very substantial weight in the planning balance. 129. There are also other benefits, as set out above, related to the continuation of an agricultural use on the land, the resting of the soils, ecological and biodiversity benefits, and economic benefits. All as set out and ascribed weight above. 130. Weighed against these very substantial benefits there is the limited and localised harm to the surrounding landscape, which would reduce over time as the proposed planting matures. 131. In addition, as required by the Framework, I have given great weight is given to the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, although the harm identified is limited. However, the benefits I have identified would cumulatively amount to public benefits in the heritage balance, such that I consider the totality of the public benefits to be more than sufficient to outweigh the harm to the heritage assets.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council Thus, the heritage harm does not provide a clear reason to refuse the development. 132. Overall, the relevant development plan policies pull in different directions, but it is clear to me that the overall balance is in favour of the grant of permission in this case. 133. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 17 Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 18

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 18 Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 ANNEX - SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the submitted documents and plan numbers: • Planning Red Line – EPD-005-GA-PB-01-R3 • Location Plan (Red and Blue Line) – EPD-005-GA-PVC-08-R4 • Proposed Layout Plan – EPD-005-GA-LA-08-R9 • Landscape Strategy Plan – P23-2503_EN-05M • Fence, Security and Site Road Details - EPD-005-GA-SC-01-R2 • DNO Cabin - EPD-005-GA-DNO-01-R1 • PV Frame and Inverter - EPD-005-GA-MS-01-R1 • CSS & Smart Inv Tx Cabins - EPD-005-GA-STS-01-R1 • Customer Storage Cabin – EPD-GA-CC-01-R1 • Skylark Mitigation – EPD-005-GA-SM-01 • Proposed Access Arrangement – P23-2503 Figure 3.1 3. The use of the site as a solar farm shall cease no later than 40 years commencing from the date electricity generated by the solar panels is first exported to the National Grid. Notice shall be given in writing to the Local Planning Authority within one month of first export.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware After this date, the solar panels shall be dismantled and the site shall be restored to its former use as agricultural land, in accordance with a decommissioning scheme that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This decommissioning scheme shall be submitted no later than 38 years from the date of first export. 4. No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological work has been completed in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 5. No part of the development shall be commenced until the proposed modified vehicular access to Cobham Road has been constructed and provided with visibility zones in general accordance with the approved plans proposed access arrangement drawing No. P23-2505, by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction over 1.05m high. 6. No development shall commence until a Construction Transport Management Plan, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware The CTMP should include details of: (a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials (c) storage of plant and materials (d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management) (e) HGV deliveries and hours of operation (f) vehicle routing (g) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 19

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware The CTMP should include details of: (a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials (c) storage of plant and materials (d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management) (e) HGV deliveries and hours of operation (f) vehicle routing (g) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 19

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 (i) before and after construction condition surveys of the highway and a commitment to fund the repair of any damage caused (j) no HGV movements to or from the site shall take place between the hours of 8.30 and 9.15 am and 3.15 and 4.00 pm nor shall the contractor permit any HGVs associated with the development at the site to be laid up, waiting, in A3, A245 Stoke Road and Cobham Road during these times (k) on-site turning for construction vehicles. Those elements agreed at part a) and b) of this policy will then be retained during the operational lifetime of the development. 7. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment (Flood risk assessment & surface water drainage strategy, version 3, ref: P23-2503, dated 10 September 2025.) and areas of the site defined as Flood Zone 2 or 3 will be left entirely undeveloped, in line with section 5.8. of the submitted FRA. These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to operation of the site and subsequently in accordance with the scheme’s timing/phasing arrangements. The measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware 8. Prior to the installation of any external lighting fixtures, a sensitive lighting management plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. This plan should demonstrate that lighting levels within 10 metres of the top of bank of the River Mole are maintained at background levels (Lux level of 0-2). The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the scheme’s timing/phasing arrangements, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 9. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the design of a surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The design must satisfy the SuDS Hierarchy and be compliant with the national Non Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS, The Framework and Ministerial Statement on SuDS.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware The required drainage details shall include: a) Detailed drainage design drawings and calculations to include: a finalised drainage layout detailing the location of drainage elements, pipe diameters, levels, and long and cross sections of each element including details of any flow restrictions and maintenance/risk reducing features (silt traps, inspection chambers etc.). Confirmation is required of a 1m unsaturated zone from the base of any proposed soakaway to the seasonal high groundwater level and confirmation of half-drain times. b) A plan showing exceedance flows (i.e. during rainfall greater than design events or during blockage) and how property on and off site will be protected from increased flood risk. c) Details of drainage management responsibilities and maintenance regimes for the drainage system. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 20

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 d) Details of how the drainage system will be protected during construction and how runoff (including any pollutants) from the development site will be managed before the drainage system is operational. 10. Prior to the first use of the development, a verification report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This must demonstrate that the surface water drainage system has been constructed as per the agreed scheme (or detail any minor variations), provide the details of any management company and state the national grid reference of any key drainage elements (surface water attenuation devices/areas, flow restriction devices and outfalls), and confirm any defects have been rectified. 11. Prior to Commencement of development, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The WMP must demonstrate that Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste (CD&E) waste arising from the development is limited to the minimum quantity necessary, and opportunities for the re-use and recycling of CD&E waste and residues are maximised.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware Thereafter, the WMP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 12. The development may not be begun unless a Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The BGP must include: a) Information about the steps taken or to be taken to minimise the adverse effect of the development on the biodiversity of the onsite habitat and any other habitat b) the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat c) the post-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat d) any registered offsite biodiversity gain allocated to the development and the biodiversity value of that gain in relation to the development e) any biodiversity credits purchased for the development f) information about the steps taken or to be taken to minimise the adverse effect 13. The BGP shall be prepared in accordance with the Ecology Note dated 09.09.25 and prepared Avian Ecology, and the Biodiversity Statutory Metric (V5) dated 04.09.25and completed by Avian Ecology.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware The development shall not commence until a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (the HMMP), prepared in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan and including: a) a non-technical summary b) the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the HMMP c) the planned habitat creation and enhancement works to create or improve habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved BGP; d) the management measures to maintain habitat in accordance with the approved BGP for a period of 30 years from the completion of development; and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 21

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware The development shall not commence until a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (the HMMP), prepared in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan and including: a) a non-technical summary b) the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the HMMP c) the planned habitat creation and enhancement works to create or improve habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved BGP; d) the management measures to maintain habitat in accordance with the approved BGP for a period of 30 years from the completion of development; and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 21

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 e) the monitoring methodology and frequency in respect of the created or enhanced habitat to be submitted to the local planning authority, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Notice in writing shall be given to the Council when the: a) HMMP has been implemented; and b) habitat creation and enhancement works as set out in the HMMP have been completed. Prior to the first commercial export of any electricity from the site the following shall take place: a) the habitat creation and enhancement works set out in the approved HMMP have been completed; and b) a completion report, evidencing the completed habitat enhancements, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The created and/or enhanced habitat specified in the approved HMMP shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved HMMP. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to Local Planning Authority in writing in accordance with the methodology and frequency specified in the approved HMMP. 14.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted for the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP should cover the adjacent ancient woodland. The CEMP shall include but not be limited to the following: a) Map showing the location of all of the ecological features onsite, including buffer zones b) Risk assessment of the potentially damaging construction activities c) Practical measures to avoid and reduce impacts during construction d) Location and timing of works to avoid harm to biodiversity features e) Responsible persons and lines of communication f) Use of protected fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs g) Protection measures for badgers h) Amphibian and Reptile Method Statement 15. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the details contained within the Landscape Strategy Plan (Drawing: P23- 2503_EN_05_M). It shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development. 16.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware The recommendations set out within the applicant's ecological surveys (Ecological Impact Assessment, Ecology Response and Ecology Addendum Report) and Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and submitted in support of the application shall be carried out in full prior to the first commercial export of any electricity from the site. This shall include but not be limited to: https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 22

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware The recommendations set out within the applicant's ecological surveys (Ecological Impact Assessment, Ecology Response and Ecology Addendum Report) and Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and submitted in support of the application shall be carried out in full prior to the first commercial export of any electricity from the site. This shall include but not be limited to: https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 22

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 a) Enhancement of existing hedgerows and planting of new hedgerows and woodland to improve / increase habitat supportive of commuting and foraging bats b) Conversion of arable land to species rich grassland, with associated increase in invertebrate biomass offering greater foraging opportunities for bats c) Installation of 10 no. bat boxes on retained trees within the site to increase roosting opportunities d) Prior tree roost inspection of all trees that require removal e) No artificial lighting use during the operational phase of the development, or if lighting is required a wildlife sensitive lighting strategy will be deployed in line with the advice set out by the Institute of Lighting Professionals and the Bat Conservation Trust in their 2013 guidance on bats and lighting. f) Pre-construction check for badgers. In the event that active badger setts are identified, no site work will proceed within at least 30m of the identified sett(s) until a mitigation strategy is implemented which ensures full accordance with the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 under the supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware Where considered necessary by the qualified ecologist, a protected species derogation license will be obtained from Natural England prior to works within 30m of active setts. 17. Prior to commencement of development a Bat Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 18. Prior to commencement of development, an Invertebrate Enhancement and Management Strategy, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 19. Prior to commencement, a Farmland Bird Management Strategy (FBMS), shall be submitted for the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The FBMS shall include enhancement and mitigation for farmland birds, including but not limited to skylark, linnet and yellowhammer. The FBMS shall provide a combination of meadow enhancement and/or skylark plots (to be agreed), along with hedgerow management measures. 23. The hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment. 24. The installed export capacity for the development hereby permitted shall not exceed 49.5 MW. 25.

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware Prior to the first commercial export of any electricity from the site a Solar Farm Grazing Management Plan (SFGMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The SFGMP shall describe the methods by which grazing will be maintained throughout the lifetime of the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved SFGMP. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 23 Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT | Odette Chalaby of Counsel, She called: | Instructed by Nigel Cussen | | --- | --- | | Nigel Cussen BSc(Hons)DipTP MRTPI | Senior Planning Director Pegasus group | | Laura Garcia BA(Hons) MCIfA | Senior Director and Deputy Head of Heritage, Pegasus Group | | Andrew Cook BA(Hons) MLD CMLI CEnv MISEP | Head of Environment, Pegasus Group | FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: | Ben Fullbrook of Counsel He called: | Instructed by the Solicitor to the Council | | --- | --- | | Brian Woods BA(TP) MRTPI | Chairman WS Planning and Architecture | | Mark Sanderson BA(Hons) PGCert MA IHBC | WS Heritage | | Nick Harper BA(Hons) DipLLA(Hons)CMLI | Partner, Harper Landscape Architecture | https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 24 Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 RESIDENTS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES:

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 RESIDENTS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES: | Mr Richard Bradfield | Fetcham Residents Association (FRA) | | --- | --- | | Councillor Philip Hammond | District Councillor, Fetcham | | Mr Ian Anderson | Co-Chair FRA | | Mr Clive Page | | | Mr Paul Richards | Slyfield House | | Ms Caroline Cardew-Smith | Co-Chair FRA | | Ms Katie Stephens | National Trust | | Ms Josephine Snell | | | Professor E J Wiltshire | | | Professor Clive Page | | https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 25 Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware Appeal Decision APP/C3620/W/25/3373058 DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY | Doc 1 | Appellant’s opening statement | | --- | --- | | Doc 2 | Council’s opening statement | | Doc 3 | Mr Richard Bradfield’s statement | | Doc 4 | Councillor Philip Hammond’s statement | | Doc 5 | Mr Ian Anderson’s statement | | Doc 6 | Mr Clive Page’s statement | | Doc 7 | Mr Paul Richard’s statement | | Doc 8 | Ms Caroline Cardew-Smith’s statement (Co-Chair FRA) | | Doc 9 | Ms Katie Stephens’ statement (National Trust) | | Doc 10 | Ms Josephine Snell’s statement | | Doc 11 | Professor E J Wiltshire’s statement | | Doc 12 | Professor Clive Page’s statement | | Doc 13 | Council’s closing statement | | Doc 14 | Appellant’s closing statement | | Doc 15 | Signed s106 agreement dated 13 February 2026 | | Doc 16 | Agreed conditions received 24 February 2026 |

Land east of Cobham Road and south of the River Mole, Cobham Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT11 3QH — Mole Valley District Council — P. J. G. Ware (The last two documents were discussed in draft at the inquiry) Access to Core documents library https://molevalleydc.sharepoint.com/sites/MVDCDocumentLibrary/Shared%20Do cuments/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2FMVDCDocumentLibrary%2FS hared%20Documents%2FMVDC%20Document%20Library%2FPlanning%2FP ublic%20Inquiries%2FLand%20east%20of%20Cobham%20Road%20and%20 south%20of%20the%20River%20Mole%20MO%2D2024%2D1048&p=true&ga= 1 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 26