# 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 (years):** 2.05 - **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 - **Tags:** overturned-officer-rec, grey-belt-rejected, purpose-a-strong, vsc-not-shown, golden-rules, housing-shortfall, affordable-led, report-written-under-2024, emerging-plan-omission ## 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 - **AnnexB:grey-belt: fail.** officers: 'moderate' contribution to (a) — contained by tree belts, urbanising influences (2025 LUC study parcel BI1 'potential grey belt'); members: 'strong contribution to Green Belt Purpose (a)' - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** officers — 2.1 km to Billericay centre, bus stop 900 m (11 min) with 2-3 buses/hour, station 2.5 km; bus contribution; members did not contest in reasons - **GB8: pass (significant weight).** 50% affordable, infrastructure, green space; officers - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** members — substantial harm to openness, conflict with purposes, VSC not shown - **TR6: neutral.** Counsel reminded members only severe highway impact justifies refusal; road safety not a reason - **DM4: neutral.** Reg 19 plan (Aug 2026) does not release site; officers gave emerging GB2 medium-strong weight ## 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 ## Sources - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=709&MId=9477 - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/documents/s158852/Enc.%202%20for%202500575OUT.pdf - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/documents/s159220/ - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/documents/g9509/Public%20minutes%2019th-Aug-2026%2019.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/documents/g9510/Public%20minutes%2009th-Sep-2026%2019.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/basildon-25-00575-OUT.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. 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.