- Decision
- allowed, 1 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: F Bradley
- Authority
- North Hertfordshire (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6009720
- Application reference
- 26/00361/PIP
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for one detached dwelling (minimum one, maximum one)
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- green belt, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), S5(5)
- Development plan policies
- North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 SP2, SP5
- Main issues
- grey belt; inappropriate development; suitability of location
Summary
Permission in principle (PIP) for one dwelling in the Green Belt on the edge of Hitchin was allowed. The inspector found the site to be grey belt, although it adjoins a large built-up area and sits in a parcel the Council's review rates as strong, because containment made its own contribution moderate. GB7(1)(g) was met and the S5(5) balance favoured approval.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties were given an opportunity to comment on the implications of the revised Framework for the appeal" (DL ¶5).
- Purpose (a): moderate. Because of the site's partial enclosure, "the proposed development would not result in an incongruous pattern of development. These features would also serve to restrict and contain the proposed development to an extent" (DL ¶12).
- Purpose (b): moderate. "Due to its small size and the existing intervening features between the towns, including roads and vegetation, the site could be developed without resulting in the loss of visual separation between the towns" (DL ¶13).
- Grey belt: PASS. "the site does not strongly contribute to the relevant purposes of the Green Belt and therefore comprises grey belt land" (DL ¶15).
- GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS. "There are bus stops and footpaths in close proximity to the site which would be available for use by future occupants to access Hitchin town centre. Due to its proximity to, and access to, different modes of transport, the site would be in a sustainable location" (DL ¶19). On the missing frontage footway: "Even if it was considered as part of this first stage, due to the scale of the development, it would not result in a significant adverse impact on the transport network" (DL ¶20).
- S5(5), not S5(1)(j). "the decision is to be made by applying the approach set out in part (5) of Policy S5 rather than part (1)(j)" (DL ¶28).
- Openness. "there is no need to consider its impact on the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶22).
Planning balance
S5(5). Substantial weight to one dwelling under HO7 and limited weight to economic benefits (DL ¶30). Limited weight to the conflict with Local Plan SP2 (DL ¶29). "I have not identified any adverse effects that would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶31).
What made the difference
Containment: housing to the west, an elevated railway to the south and vegetation to the east meant the site itself made only a moderate contribution to purpose (a), whatever the rating of the wider parcel. The location limb was passed on a general statement of nearby bus stops and footpaths, with the missing frontage footway deferred to the technical details stage. Evidence that the walk involved the carriageway might have produced a different answer on limb (iii).
Transferable points
- Land adjoining a town can still be grey belt: containment features of the kind listed in Annex E reduce the contribution to purpose (a) to moderate (DL ¶11–12).
- The site is assessed, not the review parcel: a parcel rated strong for purposes (a) and (b) did not prevent a moderate finding for a small enclosed plot (DL ¶10–13).
- Where a council argues S5(1)(j) on a Green Belt site, S5(5) is the correct route (DL ¶28).
- Once GB7(1)(g) is met, openness is not assessed (DL ¶22).
- Caution: limb (iii) was passed without distances, frequencies or a route assessment (DL ¶19–20), so the letter is weak authority on the sustainable-location test.
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 | moderate contribution to purpose (a) (adjacent to Hitchin, a large built-up area, but partly enclosed by housing, an elevated railway and vegetation); moderate to (b) (very small part of the Hitchin-Stevenage gap); none to (d); site distinguished from the 2016 Green Belt Review parcel, rated strong; Annex E applied (DL 10-15) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(i) | pass | limited encroachment; would not fundamentally undermine the purposes taken together (DL 17) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | no five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 18) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | bus stops and footpaths "in close proximity" give access to Hitchin town centre; no distances or frequencies; no footway at the site frontage, left to the technical details stage (DL 19-20) | |
| TR3 | pass | accords with TR3; scale means no significant adverse impact on the transport network (DL 20) | |
| S5(1)(j) | not-engaged | Council argued conflict with S5(1)(j); S5(5) takes Green Belt proposals out of S5(1) (DL 28) | |
| S5(5) | pass | not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed; no adverse effects found (DL 28, 31) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | one dwelling; a modest contribution to supply (DL 30) |
| Transitional(2) | conflict | limited | conflict with SP2 (development outside the settlement boundary) given limited weight having regard to S5(5); Annex A not cited (DL 23, 29) |
Key facts
- PIP stage 1, so only location, land use and amount are considered (DL 3)
- North Herts Green Belt Review 2016 rates the wider parcel as a strong contribution to purposes (a) and (b) (DL 10, 13)
- Council's response on the new Framework raised the lack of a footway at the site frontage; not a refusal reason (DL 20)
- Site about 500 m from Great Wymondley; no appreciable harm to heritage settings there (DL 27)
- Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework and both responded (DL 5)
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.