- Decision
- allowed, 14 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: R Gee
- Authority
- Castle Point (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6007184
- Application reference
- 25/0660/OUT
- Procedure
- hearing
- Development
- Outline, up to 58 dwellings (50% affordable), access, POS, play, attenuation basins, landscaping
- Homes
- 58
- Site context
- green belt, settlement edge, ancient woodland
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Housing land supply
- 0.91 years
- Housing Delivery Test
- 11%
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- AnnexB:grey-belt, GB7(1)(g), GB8, S5(5), HO7, HO8
- Development plan policies
- none relevant to Green Belt — reason for refusal relied on national policy (DL 10, 116)
- Main issues
- grey belt; Golden Rules; loss of riding centre grazing; heritage; landscape; habitats
Summary
Outline scheme for up to 58 homes (50% affordable) on contained former paddocks on the Thundersley edge, previously dismissed on a larger red line in 2024. Allowed after a hearing: the site was grey belt, all four GB7(1)(g) limbs were met including the Golden Rules, so the scheme was not inappropriate. Under S5(5) the benefits (substantial weight to market and affordable housing given 0.91 years' supply and HDT 11%) were not outweighed by limited landscape and NDHA harm.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework; "My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework" (DL ¶7).
- Grey belt, purpose (a): not strong. The 2025 GBA's "strong" parcel score was not decisive: "the site is physically contained by strong features. At the Hearing, the Council conceded that development of the appeal site would not create an extended 'finger' of development" (DL ¶18); "the containment of the site significantly limits the extent of that harm" (DL ¶20). The 2018 review was "a strategic, parcel-level assessment rather than a site-specific evaluation" (DL ¶16).
- Purpose (b): not engaged. "Purpose (b) of the Green Belt only concerns the merging of towns, and expressly states that it does not relate to villages" (DL ¶24).
- GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS. Some encroachment, but "the site does not perform a significant strategic Green Belt function … it would not fundamentally undermine the remaining purposes" (DL ¶32).
- GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS. 0.91 years and HDT 29%/11% → "there is an evidenced unmet need for the type of development" (DL ¶35).
- GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS (agreed). Facilities "within walking and cycling distance … accessible via the existing pedestrian / cycle network" plus bus stops (DL ¶38).
- GB8: PASS. Golden Rules agreed met; "substantial weight is therefore afforded to the proposal's compliance with the Golden Rules" (DL ¶39).
- Consequence: "it would not, by definition, be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Consequently, there is no need to further consider harm to openness or very special circumstances" (DL ¶40).
- Riding centre (E4/HC6/HC7): no causal link to closure shown; HC7 and HC6 not engaged (DL ¶43-50).
- Heritage: no effect on listed cottages (HE6); limited harm to NDHA under HE7 (DL ¶52-55).
Planning balance
S5(5): permission "unless the benefits are substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶81). Benefits: housing (substantial), 50% affordable (substantial), Golden Rules compliance (substantial, GB8(2)), BNG and ancient woodland enhancement (significant each), POS and economic benefits. Harms: limited landscape, limited NDHA. "the overall planning balance falls clearly in favour of the development" (DL ¶102). No development plan conflict because the Council relied only on national policy (DL ¶116).
What made the difference
Physical containment. The site was enclosed by a road, ancient woodland and existing housing, so the inspector found it did not strongly serve purpose (a), even though the Council's 2025 Green Belt Assessment had scored the wider parcel "strong". Purpose (b) fell away because the nearby settlement was a village. Once grey belt was established, an extreme supply position (0.91 years, HDT 11%), agreed sustainable-location credentials, and 50% affordable housing meeting the Golden Rules carried every limb. An open site that allowed sprawl to continue, or one lacking a walkable route, would have failed at (i) or (iii).
Transferable points
- Strategic parcel-level GB review scores are not determinative of site-level grey belt status; the decision-maker assesses the site (DL ¶16, 20-23).
- A contained site with enduring boundaries on all sides does not strongly contribute to purpose (a) (DL ¶19, 23).
- Purpose (b) is confined to towns; a village gap does not engage it (DL ¶24-25).
- The fn41 test for unmet need is met by supply below five years or HDT below 75% (DL ¶33-35).
- When GB7(1)(g) is met, there is no separate openness or VSC assessment (DL ¶40).
- Golden Rules compliance attracts substantial weight in the S5(5) balance (DL ¶39, 100, 117).
- A commercial riding centre is not a "key community facility" under HC6, and private grazing land is not HC7 recreational land (DL ¶49-50).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AnnexB:grey-belt | pass | purpose (a) not strong — site contained by road, ancient woodland and housing, no "finger" of development; (b) not engaged (Daws Heath is a village); (d) no contribution (DL 18-29) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(i) | pass | some encroachment (purpose c) but contained parcel with no significant strategic function; would not fundamentally undermine remaining GB (DL 31-32) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | 0.91 yrs supply; HDT 2024 29%, 2025 11% → evidenced unmet need via fn41 (DL 33-35) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | agreed — day-to-day facilities walkable/cyclable via existing pedestrian/cycle network, bus stops to Southend, Hadleigh, Rayleigh (DL 37-38) | |
| GB8 | pass | substantial | agreed Golden Rules met — 50% affordable, public green space, local infrastructure improvements; substantial weight under GB8(2) (DL 39, 100) |
| HC6 | not-engaged | commercial riding centre is not a "key community facility" (DL 50) | |
| HC7 | not-engaged | private grazing land is not recreational land/facility (DL 49) | |
| HE6 | neutral | no effect on Grade II Nos 96-98 Daws Heath Road (DL 52) | |
| HE7 | harm | limited | limited harm to NDHA No 137 Daws Heath Road; outweighed by benefits (DL 55, 101) |
| N2 | harm | limited | limited, localised landscape harm (DL 62, 118) |
| N6 | pass | Essex Coast RAMS contribution; AA — no adverse effect on integrity (DL 63-66) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | 58 homes against 0.91-yr supply and HDT 11% (DL 85-87) |
| HO8 | benefit | substantial | 50% affordable (up to 29) vs historic delivery of ~7 affordable dpa (DL 88-90) |
| N6 / BNG | benefit | significant | BNG 29.45% habitat, 21.29% hedgerow (DL 92); ancient woodland enhancement also significant weight (DL 94) |
Key facts
- Castle Point supply 0.91 years; HDT 2023 54%, 2024 29%, 2025 11% (second worst in England)
- Undeveloped former paddocks between Thundersley housing and Ragwood Riding Centre; Daws Heath Road north, ancient woodland south/east
- 2025 Green Belt Assessment scored the combined parcel "strong" on purpose (a); Inspector disagreed on site-specific containment
- Previous appeal on larger site dismissed 16 July 2024 (APP/M1520/W/23/3329585) under old Framework
- 50% affordable exceeds the 35% SPD requirement; s106 secures RAMS, BNG, education, health, library, ambulance EV charging
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.