Magdalen Lodge, Potash Road, Billericay

Decision

refused, 9 September 2026

Decided by

Council planning committee: Basildon Planning Committee (minded to refuse 19 Aug 2026, 2 for / 5 against officer rec; refusal wording agreed 9 Sep 2026, 5-1)

Authority

Basildon (East of England)

Application reference

25/00575/OUT

Procedure

committee

Development

Outline, up to 49 dwellings (50% affordable), new access from Potash Road

Homes

49

Site context

green belt, settlement edge, ancient woodland

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt rejected)

Housing land supply

2.05 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB6(2), AnnexB:grey-belt, GB2(1)(a), GB7(1)(g)(i)

Development plan policies

Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies BAS GB1, Pre-Submission Local Plan (Reg 19, Aug 2026) GB2

Main issues

grey belt purpose (a); VSC; members vs officers; emerging plan

Summary

49 homes (50% affordable) on an edge-of-Billericay Green Belt site in a borough with a 2.05-year supply. Officers treated it as grey belt passing all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, with VSC as a fallback, and recommended approval. Members voted 5-2 against on 19 August 2026, two days after the new Framework took effect. On 9 September they adopted a refusal reason finding that the site makes a "strong contribution to Green Belt Purpose (a)" and so is not grey belt, that openness harm is substantial, and that VSC are not shown.

Issues and findings

• Grey belt: officers PASS, members FAIL. Officers: "the site is considered to make a moderate contribution to Green Belt purpose (a) and a weak/no contribution to purposes (b) and (d) … the parcel exhibits characteristics consistent with grey belt designation" (Report ¶5.1.23, ¶5.1.32). The tree belts "form a strong and defensible outer boundary". Adopted reason: "the application site made a strong contribution to Green Belt Purpose (a), as defined by Policy GB2(1) of the NPPF, and therefore does not meet the definition of Grey Belt land as set out in Policy GB7(g)(i)" (Minutes 9 Sep, item 7).
• Sustainable location (officers). "The nearest bus stops are located on Stock Road, approximately 900 metres from the site, an 11-minute walk … 2–3 buses per hour"; station 2.5 km; town centre 2.1 km; "public transport accessibility is considered acceptable" (Report ¶5.9.5, ¶5.9.10–5.9.12). Members' reason does not rely on location.
• Highways. Counsel reminded members "that, per the NPPF, a severe adverse impact on highway safety is the only justification to refuse an application on highways grounds" (Minutes 19 Aug, item 6).
• Transition. Officers' addendum said the revised NPPF "does not materially alter the planning balance or officer recommendation". Report references are read as references to successor provisions (Addendum 18 Aug).

Planning balance

Officers: GB7(1)(g) compliant, so not inappropriate. Fallback: VSC through the 2.05-year supply, 50% affordable, BNG and contributions. Members: GB6(2), "not satisfied that the benefits of the scheme clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt and other harm".

What made the difference

The grey belt judgement on purpose (a). The officer and the Council's own 2025 Green Belt study said "moderate", with tree-belt containment. Members said "strong". Once the land is not grey belt, members only need to hold that VSC are not shown, even at a 2.05-year supply and 50% affordable. Local history mattered: earlier appeal dismissals nearby, and a neighbouring authority's view. An appeal will test whether "strong" on purpose (a) is sustainable against the Council's own study.

Transferable points

• Members can refuse by re-grading purpose (a) from moderate to strong, even against the Council's own Green Belt study. The adopted wording expressly ties GB2(1)(a) to GB7(1)(g)(i) (Minutes 9 Sep).
• A walk of about 900 m to a bus stop with 2–3 buses an hour, and a town centre 2.1 km away, was accepted by officers as a sustainable location for GB7(1)(g)(iii) (Report ¶5.9.10–5.9.12).
• Committee legal advice: "severe" is the only highway refusal threshold (TR6), so road-safety objections should be framed as TR3 location or GB harm, not highway safety.

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Supply 2.05 years; members told only 23% of housing target met (HDT)
• Officer recommendation to approve (grey belt route, fallback VSC); first refusal vote 11 Mar 2026 re-run after procedural complaint
• Neighbouring sites refused on appeal before grey belt; Chelmsford CC reached a different grey belt view of the site
• 78 objections; Potash Road Action Group spoke
• Norsey Woods (ancient woodland) c.270 m away

Related decisions

• basildon-25-01188-OUT
• basildon-25-01190-OUT
• basildon-24-01047-OUT

Sources

• basildonmeetings.info
• basildonmeetings.info
• basildonmeetings.info
• basildonmeetings.info
• basildonmeetings.info

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.