- Decision
- dismissed, 17 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: K Mee
- Authority
- Bury (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6007316
- Application reference
- 72260
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for up to 4 dwellings on equestrian land (stables, manège, containers, tracks)
- Homes
- 4
- Site context
- green belt, settlement edge, PDL
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt rejected)
- Housing land supply
- 4 years
- Framework applied
- December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- Determinative policies
- GB6(2), GB7(1)(e), GB7(1)(g)(i), AnnexB:grey-belt
- Development plan policies
- Places for Everyone Joint DPD 2022-2039 JP-H4
- Main issues
- grey belt; PDL; openness; density; VSC balance
Summary
PIP for up to four dwellings on equestrian land south of the A667, accessed from the end of a ribbon of houses on the edge of Radcliffe. It was dismissed. Only part of the site was proven PDL, and the scheme would cause substantial harm to openness. The site was also not grey belt, because it strongly contributes to checking sprawl. Although dated 17 August 2026, the decision applies the December 2024 Framework throughout.
Issues and findings
- Framework applied. The letter cites 2024 paragraphs 11, 130, 143, 153, 154(g) and 155 and never mentions the August 2026 Framework. It is recorded as transitional.
- PDL (2024 ¶154(g) → GB7(1)(e)): FAIL. "I cannot be satisfied as to the extent of the curtilage associated with the PDL, nor that it encompasses the appeal site in its entirety" (DL ¶11). "Given the uncertainty surrounding the extent of the curtilage … and the conspicuous urbanising effect … the proposal would result in substantial harm to openness" (DL ¶14).
- Grey belt (2024 ¶155(a) → GB7(1)(g)(i)): FAIL. "the focus of this appeal should similarly be on the role of the site … rather than on the wider role of parcel BU-BA46" (DL ¶20). But "it is surrounded by open fields and lacks nearby physical features capable of restricting and containing further development. Furthermore, it is adjacent or near to a large built-up area … I therefore find that the land makes a strong contribution to preventing urban sprawl" (DL ¶21).
- Unmet need and sustainable location: PASS (DL ¶22-23). The Golden Rules were not engaged (DL ¶24).
- Density: 8-10 dph was acceptable, given that 14+ homes would be more harmful in the Green Belt (DL ¶30-31).
Planning balance
VSC under 2024 ¶153 (GB6(2)). Housing (moderate shortfall, about 4 years) had significant weight, with economic and BNG benefits alongside. These "would not clearly outweigh this harm" (DL ¶34). Green Belt was a strong reason for refusal, so the tilted balance was disengaged (DL ¶35).
What made the difference
Grey belt failed on purpose (a). The inspector accepted a site-level rather than parcel-level assessment. Even so, the site was open, uncontained by physical features and next to a large built-up area, so the result was the same. The PDL argument failed because the curtilage was unevidenced. A site with defined boundaries, or containment by built form or strong features, would have been needed.
Transferable points
- Grey belt contribution is assessed for the site, not the wider GBA parcel (DL ¶20), but that does not help an uncontained site next to a large built-up area (DL ¶21).
- The appellant must evidence the extent of PDL curtilage. Uncertainty counts against the GB7(1)(e) claim (DL ¶11, 14).
- Scattered equestrian structures plus open land do not make a whole site PDL. Replacing them with houses can be "substantial harm" to openness (DL ¶13-14).
- A low density can be justified by the Green Belt setting (DL ¶30-31).
- A decision issued on 17 August 2026 applied the 2024 Framework without comment. This shows the handover gap.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(e) | fail | 2024 para 154(g); part of site PDL but curtilage extent unproven; houses, road and domestic paraphernalia would cause substantial harm to openness (DL 10-14) | |
| AnnexB:grey-belt | fail | 2024 para 155(a)/143(a); strong contribution to purpose (a) — open fields all round, no containing features, adjacent to a large built-up area; site-level not parcel-level assessment (DL 20-21) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | 2024 para 155(b); no five-year supply (DL 22) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | 2024 para 155(c); sustainable location agreed (DL 23) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | 2024 para 153; inappropriate plus openness harm not clearly outweighed (DL 34) |
| HO7 | benefit | significant | supply just over 4 years ("moderate shortfall"), 4 homes, quick delivery (DL 32) |
| L3 | pass | 8-10 dph below the 35 dph in JP-H4 but justified by the Green Belt setting (DL 27-31) |
Key facts
- Decision dated 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but reasoned entirely under the December 2024 Framework (paras 11, 143, 153-155); no reference to the 2026 Framework
- Greater Manchester GBA 2016 parcel BU-BA46 found strong at inhibiting ribbon development south along the A667; inspector focused on the site rather than the parcel
- Site accessed via track at end of a ribbon of dwellings; open fields around; no physical features to contain development
- Supply just over 4 years; PIP for up to 4 bungalows at about 8-10 dph
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.