# Erith Cottages, Main Road, Lacey Green - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Plenty - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009997 - **Application reference:** 24/07369/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of 4 detached dwellings on former builder's yard / garden land - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** green-belt, inside-settlement, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.98 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), TR3(1)(c), TR4(1)(d), S4, GB7(1)(g) - **Development plan policies:** Wycombe Local Plan 2019 CP9, DM20, DM30, DM32, DM33, DM35, Delivery and Site Allocations Plan 2013 DM5 - **Main issues:** highway safety, loss of business use, character and National Landscape, bin storage - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, lpa-conceded-grey-belt, highway-safety-refusal, s5-2-refusal-policy, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, national-landscape, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary Four houses on a narrow former builder's yard and garden site in the middle of Lacey Green, in the Green Belt and Chilterns National Landscape. Once the 2026 Framework was published, the council conceded the site was grey belt and met GB7(1)(g), and dropped its Green Belt refusal reason. The appeal still failed on highway safety: the access visibility splay depends on a neighbour's hedge. TR6(4) says such proposals should be refused, and the benefits (substantial weight to 4 homes against a 1.98-year supply) were "substantially outweighed". ## Issues and findings - **Green Belt: conceded.** "Upon review of the Framework the Council finds that the proposal would be regarded as Grey Belt and would comply with the Framework's policy GB7(1)(g). As such, it no longer seeks to defend Reason for Refusal 1 … I see no reason to disagree" (DL ¶3). - **Highway safety: FAIL.** "the appellant has failed to demonstrate how a suitable visibility splay can be achieved without crossing third party land" (DL ¶14), "resulting in a significant adverse highway safety impact" (DL ¶15). - **Business-use loss:** not engaged; there was no evidence of an active builder's yard (DL ¶19). - **Character and National Landscape:** no harm, being a backland cul-de-sac within the settlement's pattern (DL ¶21–26). ## Planning balance The inspector applied S4 because the site is "within a settlement" (DL ¶33). Benefits: substantial weight to homes (HO7, 1.98-year supply), plus bus stops within 155 m and efficient use of land. Against them: TR6(4), TR3(1)(c) and TR4(1)(d) conflicts. "the benefits of the proposed development, would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects … the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL ¶37). ## What made the difference Third-party land at the access. The Green Belt objection disappeared under the new Framework, but one TR6(4) "should be refused" failure was enough to outweigh substantial housing benefits. A splay within the appellant's control would probably have produced an approval. ## Transferable points - Councils are withdrawing Green Belt refusal reasons for small infill sites within villages once grey belt is reassessed under the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - One unsafe access (TR6(4)) can "substantially outweigh" substantial weight for housing in a 1.98-year-supply district (DL ¶36–37). - Relying on third-party land for visibility is fatal unless it is secured (DL ¶13–14). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g): pass.** after the new Framework the council conceded grey belt and GB7(1)(g) compliance and withdrew GB reason for refusal; inspector agreed (DL 3) - **N4: neutral.** within a settlement, Chilterns NL special qualities unaffected (DL 24-26) - **TR6(4): fail.** north-west visibility splay needs third-party hedge land; unsafe access on a curving 30 mph road (DL 11-16, 36) - **TR3(1)(c): conflict.** highway safety impact not mitigated (DL 36) - **S4: fail.** site treated as within the settlement; benefits substantially outweighed by the highway-safety harm (DL 33, 37) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 4 homes in a district with 1.98-year supply (DL 32) ## Key facts - Council conceded grey belt / GB7(1)(g) after 17 Aug and dropped the Green Belt refusal reason (DL 3) - Bus stops 65 m and 155 m away with a high-frequency High Wycombe–Aylesbury service (DL 35) - Access onto a curving 30 mph road; 2.4 x 43 m splay relies on a neighbour's hedge (DL 11-14) - Buckinghamshire supply 1.98 years (DL 32) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009997 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/154b45d1-cfbc-417e-82b4-4aa6e21f5163 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009997.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.