- Decision
- approved, 16 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council planning committee: Sefton Planning Committee (case officer Michael Coburn)
- Authority
- Sefton (North West)
- Application reference
- DC/2026/00141
- Procedure
- committee
- Development
- Three two-storey detached dwellings (one 3-bed, two 4-bed) with parking and gardens
- Homes
- 3
- Site context
- green belt, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Housing land supply
- 3.34 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(g), TR3
- Development plan policies
- Sefton Local Plan 2017 MN7, EQ2, NH2, Maghull Neighbourhood Plan
- Main issues
- grey belt; sustainable location; previous appeal dismissal
Summary
Three open-market houses on a grassland corner plot in the Green Belt, on the suburban edge of Maghull. An appeal for four houses on the same land was dismissed as inappropriate development after a 2018 refusal. This time officers treated the land as grey belt under GB7(1)(g): it adjoins and is contained by the built-up area, the council has a 3.34-year supply, and there are bus stops and a primary school within walking distance. The committee approved it without dissent recorded in the minutes.
Issues and findings
- Grey belt: PASS. "It is physically contained by existing development and established boundaries and would represent a limited extension to the built-up area rather than an isolated or incongruous incursion" (Report ¶6.5). On purpose (b), "it comprises only a small portion of a substantially larger gap" (¶6.6). Purpose (d) is not relevant (¶6.7).
- Unmet need: PASS. "supply position of approximately 3.34 years. Accordingly, substantial weight is attached to the provision of additional housing" (¶6.9).
- Sustainable location / TR3: PASS. "The site is located adjacent to the existing built-up area of Maghull and is within walking distance of bus stops and a primary school … The site is considered to accord with Policy TR3" (¶6.9). The report gives no measured distances. Highways asked for a new crossing point, dropped kerbs, tactile paving and removal of guardrail, and these were added to the plans (¶6.37–6.38). "pedestrian visibility splays are not achieved to the north of the site access, this is considered acceptable as there is no footway at this location" (¶6.39).
- Golden Rules: not engaged, minor development (¶6.10).
- VSC: "such circumstances are not considered necessary" (¶6.13).
Planning balance
No GB6 balance, because the scheme was not inappropriate. The report does not run the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" test expressly. It concludes that the proposal "accords with the Development Plan when read as a whole" (¶7.4). The local plan Green Belt policy MN7 defers to national exceptions (¶6.2), so the grey belt finding also satisfied the plan.
What made the difference
Grey belt status turned a dismissed-appeal site into an acceptable one. The decisive facts were physical containment on a suburban edge and an existing crossing and footway network on the built-up side, improved by the scheme. The sustainable-location reasoning is thin: one sentence, no distances, no Connectivity Tool. Contrast Newchapel and South Nutfield (PINS-6010313, PINS-6009966), where the route to services had no footway. Here the dwellings adjoin a "relatively dense suburban edge".
Transferable points
- Officers treated a previous dismissal as superseded by the grey belt policy (Report ¶2.1–2.2).
- A local plan Green Belt policy worded as "subject to the exceptions set out in national planning policy" lets GB7(1)(g) operate directly through the development plan (¶6.2).
- Edge-of-suburb containment is treated as enough for grey belt even on greenfield land (¶6.5).
- A one-line TR3 assessment (bus stops and a school within walking distance) was accepted at committee. At appeal a thin assessment like this is exposed if the route lacks footways.
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 | small parcel adjoining Maghull built-up edge, 'physically contained by existing development and established boundaries'; small part of a larger gap; no historic town | |
| GB7(1)(g)(i) | pass | modest scale of three dwellings, no strategic harm | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | substantial | 3.34-year supply = demonstrable need |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | adjacent to built-up area, walking distance of bus stops and primary school; new crossing point with dropped kerbs/tactile paving secured | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iv) | not-engaged | minor development | |
| Sefton LP MN7 | accord | MN7 defers to national exceptions, so compliance with GB7 satisfies it |
Key facts
- 2018 refusal and dismissed appeal for 4 dwellings on the same site as inappropriate development; policy change (grey belt) cited as reason for different outcome
- Supply c.3.34 years
- No footway on site side to the north of the access; highways required new pedestrian crossing point, dropped kerbs, tactile paving and removal of guardrail on opposite side of Kenyons Lane
- Called in by ward councillor on Green Belt grounds; three objections
- Approved in accordance with officer recommendation, no recorded debate on Green Belt
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.