Priory Lodge, River Lane, Leatherhead, KT22 0AU Data via plota.co.uk

MO/2026/00523 - Detailed Refused

Proposal

Erection of brick walls, brick pillars, gates and installation of lighting. Data via plota.co.uk

View original council record ↗Last checked

Application progress

Received
26 Mar 2026
Validated
27 Apr 2026
Refused
19 Jun 2026
Appeal
Not lodged

Refused on 19 Jun 2026 · Delegated · Last checked 6 Sept 2026

Site constraints 7

Special area of conservation
Green belt: London
Inappropriate development needs very special circumstances.
Green belt policy allows a short list of exceptions, such as limited extensions and replacement buildings. Anything else needs very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm.
Flood zone 2, rivers and sea
Medium chance: between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 annual chance from rivers, or 1 in 200 to 1 in 1,000 from the sea. Any development here needs a flood risk assessment. Defences are not counted.
The Environment Agency flood map for planning. Homes in zone 3 must also pass the sequential test. Surface water flooding is a separate map.
Flood map ↗
Agricultural land, grade 3b
Not best and most versatile land (grades 1, 2 and 3a). Predicted from the national soil map. The older provisional map agrees.
Where development of farmland is needed, policy prefers poorer land over the best and most versatile (grades 1, 2 and 3a). Three sources: Natural England's post-1988 field surveys, which are definitive where they exist; the Defra predictive map for England (2025) and the Welsh Government predictive map, modelled from the soil map with 3a and 3b split; and the 1970s provisional map, which planners and other services still show, coarser and with grade 3 undivided. Where the provisional and predicted grades disagree, treat the predicted grade as the current estimate and expect an application to carry its own survey.
Public byway open to all traffic 22 m away
Matters where it crosses or adjoins the site: obstructing a path without a diversion order is an offence, and work cannot start until the order is confirmed.
Compiled from highway authority data, not the legal definitive map. A few authorities have not published, so no path shown is not proof there is none.
Habitat network: Network Expansion Zone
Where habitat is joined up enough to work as a network. Context, not a constraint on its own.
Special area of conservationCouncil record
Recorded by the council for this site.
Council site ↗
Also on the record
Local nature reserve 330 m away: River Mole.
Not affected
No listed building at the site · No scheduled monument at the site

Checked on 11 September 2026. Historic England, the Environment Agency, Natural England and council datasets, Open Government Licence. A boundary can run through a site and the council holds the definitive record: confirm with the council before relying on this.

Work with planning data?

Every application in Mole Valley - and every UK council - as a live feed, an API, or a bulk CSV export.

About Plota's data service

Important details

Application type
Detailed
Postcode
KT22 0AU
Received
26 Mar 2026
Validated
27 Apr 2026
Ward
Leatherhead North
Parish
Non Parish Area
Case officer
Show
Target decision
23 Jun 2026
Decision
REFUSE
Decision date
19 Jun 2026
Decision level
Delegated
Applicant
Show
Agent
WS Planning & Architecture

How this decision compares

Decided in 53 days from validation, about the council's usual 56 days. Refused, as 19% of extensions here are.

56%decided within 8 weeks
81%approved
275decided in the last year

Plota live figures for extensions decided by Mole Valley in the last twelve months, from validation. Mole Valley decision record →

Consultation & key dates

Alt. reference
PP/2026/00423
Comments by
9 Jun 2026
Committee
17 Apr 2026
Statutory expiry
23 Jun 2026
Env. assessment
No
Mole Valley
Planning Authority Score
2.1/10
Poor
#270 of 296 councils
Relevant to this application:
Householder decisions

Mole Valley is slower than most councils at deciding householder applications, ranking #240 out of 296. Mole Valley is also one of the strictest councils - it refuses more householder applications than almost any other, with only 76% approved vs 90% nationally.

One of the strictest councils
only 76% approved vs 90% nationally
These figures are council-wide context, not a prediction for this application. View full council performance
Mole Valley decision statistics
Based on MHCLG data, the year to March 2026
72%
Overall approval rate
Below avg (87%) #291 of 296
76%
Householder approved
Below avg (90%) #291 of 296
50%
Decided in 8 weeks
Below avg (63%) #240 of 296
43%
Extended time limit
Above avg (41%) #172 of 296
47%
Minor dwellings approved
114 decided (1-9 homes)
71%
Major dwellings approved
7 decided (10+ homes)
93%
Change of use approved
15 decided
913
Total decisions
259 refused in the year to March 2026