"Very special circumstances" under the 2026 NPPF

The Green Belt test in GB6(2): what it says, when it is reached, how inspectors run it, what has counted since 17 August 2026, and every decision so far that applied it.

The short answer #

"Very special circumstances" is the test for inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and nothing else. It lives in policy GB6(2) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of 17 August 2026. It is reached only after a proposal has failed every category in GB7, the list of development that is not inappropriate. Development that passes GB7 never meets it; it goes instead to the "substantially outweighed" balance in S5(5).

The test is a balance with the scales pre-loaded. Harm to the Green Belt, by definition and to its openness, carries substantial weight. The applicant must show other considerations that clearly outweigh that harm and any other harm. The Inspectorate's training manual puts it as "not just marginally, but decisively". It is the opposite of the presumption that runs everywhere else, which approves unless adverse effects substantially outweigh the benefits.

Since the Framework took effect, 2 appeal decisions have found very special circumstances (a hotel kitchen and a garage) and 65 have not. No housing scheme has found them at appeal in 27 attempts, at supplies as low as 1.9 years and with up to 28 affordable homes. Councils have found them 8 times, for rural workers, a care home, a farm shop, a sports clubhouse and two fallback cases.

The test #

Policy GB6 is the Green Belt's control policy. Its second paragraph is the test:

Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposed development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In making this assessment, substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt which would be caused, including harm to its openness.
NPPF, August 2026, GB6(2)

Three things are packed into it. Inappropriate development is harmful by definition: no evidence of actual harm is needed, and none can be argued away. The harm carries substantial weight, including harm to openness. And the other considerations must clearly outweigh the total of the Green Belt harm and any other harm (to character, heritage, highway safety, the sustainability of the location, and so on). Only then do very special circumstances exist. They are the conclusion of the balance, not an ingredient in it.

The third paragraph names one consideration the Framework itself regards as capable of doing the job:

In the case of proposals for renewable and low carbon energy development, very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources.
NPPF, August 2026, GB6(3)

And GB7 opens by saying who never has to pass the test:

The following categories of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, and therefore should not be regarded as harmful to the Green Belt or be required to demonstrate very special circumstances:
NPPF, August 2026, GB7(1)

The words appear 3 times in the Framework, all in the Green Belt chapter. "Clearly outweigh" appears 5 times in all: the other uses (loss of open space under HC7, harm to Sites of Special Scientific Interest under N6) borrow the standard but are not called very special circumstances.

Where it came from #

The test is the one part of the Green Belt chapter that the 2026 Framework did not rewrite. Paragraph 153 of the December 2024 Framework read:

Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
NPPF, December 2024, ¶153

The 2026 text moves "substantial weight" from the front of the paragraph to the end, and drops the quotation marks. The grey belt category, the Golden Rules and the station route are new; the test that waits for anything that falls outside them is not. Cornerstone Barristers' note on the new Framework says GB6(2) "now states the familiar rules on development in the Green Belt: inappropriate development is by definition harmful; no approval unless the very special circumstances test is met; etc." The case law on what "very special" means, from Wychavon (2008) to Sefton (2021), therefore carries straight across. The presumption, by contrast, was rewritten from end to end.

How inspectors are trained to run it #

The Planning Inspectorate's Inspector Training Manual, in the edition of 17 September 2026 updated for the new Framework, sets a six-step order for Green Belt appeals: is the development inappropriate (and is the land grey belt); is there any other harm; if inappropriate, what other considerations are advanced and with what weight; do they clearly outweigh the harm (the "Green Belt balancing exercise"); if so, do very special circumstances exist; then the conclusion under section 38(6). The manual is training material, not policy, but it is what the letters below are following. Four of its instructions explain most of the results.

The bar is "clearly", and the manual reads that as "decisively".
If the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm, very special circumstances cannot exist (GB6 of NPPF) and the appeal should be dismissed.
Inspector Training Manual, chapter 24, Green Belts (17 September 2026 edition), ¶47

It is not sufficient for them to merely outweigh. In other words, for the appeal to succeed, the overall balance would have to favour the appellants’ case, not just marginally, but decisively.
Inspector Training Manual, chapter 24, Green Belts (17 September 2026 edition), ¶49
The considerations are weighed one by one; none of them is "very special" on its own.
There is also no requirement for them to be ‘very special’ or to compare them to the harm identified by means of a mini-balance as you go through them.
Inspector Training Manual, chapter 24, Green Belts (17 September 2026 edition), ¶43
The manual's list of things not to do ends with: do not "state that it is the very special circumstances that outweigh/don’t outweigh the harm (it is the other considerations)".
An absence of harm counts for nothing.
An absence of harm or a reduced level of harm should be treated as such and should not be counted as positive considerations in support of the scheme.
Inspector Training Manual, chapter 24, Green Belts (17 September 2026 edition), ¶44
The letters apply this constantly: no highway objection "does not amount to a benefit" (Langley, ¶34), no technical objections "would be a neutral matter" (Lydiate, ¶29).
"Special" does not mean rare. Quoting the Court of Appeal in Wychavon v SSCLG [2008] EWCA Civ 692:
Rarity may of course contribute to the "special" quality of a particular factor, but it is not essential, as a matter of ordinary language or policy.
Inspector Training Manual, chapter 24, Green Belts (17 September 2026 edition), ¶50
And:
The circumstances do not have to be unique, and the possibility that similar circumstances might arise elsewhere does not prevent a finding of very special circumstances in any particular case.
Inspector Training Manual, chapter 24, Green Belts (17 September 2026 edition), ¶51
This is why a verified rural worker's need, which arises on many farms, can be very special circumstances on any one of them.

The manual also notes a trap with heritage: a finding that heritage harm is outweighed by public benefits under HE6 "does not constitute a finding of ‘no harm’ (and thus a neutral factor) for Green Belt purposes"; the harm still sits on the Green Belt side of the scales (¶36).

When it is used, and when it is not #

The 2026 Framework sends every Green Belt proposal down one of two roads, and the fork is GB7. Policy S5(5) is the signpost:

This policy does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt or on land designated as Local Green Space, which should instead be determined in accordance with policies HC8, GB6, GB7 and/or GB8 (as appropriate). However, where development would not be inappropriate in these locations (through the application of policies HC8 and GB7), proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework, and applying paragraph 2 of this policy.
NPPF, August 2026, S5(5)

Does the proposal fall within a GB7(1) category?
reuse of buildings (b), limited infill in a village (c), previously developed land (e), grey belt with its four limbs (g), the station route (h), and the rest

Yes: not inappropriate

No harm to the Green Belt is presumed and no very special circumstances are needed. S5(5) applies: approve unless the benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects, applying the S5(2) "should be refused" triggers.

The presumption page covers this balance.

No: inappropriate

Harmful by definition, substantial weight to the harm. GB6(2) applies: approve only if other considerations clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm and any other harm. S5 is not engaged at all.

This page.

Inspectors state the first road in a sentence. At Daws Heath Road, 58 homes on grey belt that met the Golden Rules:

Consequently, there is no need to further consider harm to openness or very special circumstances.
Thundersley, appeal 6007184, ¶40

At Bournheath, citing Lee Valley:

The courts have held that in this scenario, it is not necessary to consider its impact on the openness of the Green Belt, nor does the proposal need to demonstrate very special circumstances.
Bournheath, appeal 6011301, ¶18

And the second road closes S5 behind it. Once a scheme is inappropriate, the "substantially outweighed" balance is not available as a second chance:

However, as the proposal would be inappropriate development under Policy GB7, the further balance applicable to development that is not inappropriate under Policy S5(5) is not engaged.
Halsall, appeal 6007428, ¶28

As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify this development do not exist. This would be contrary to the Framework and CS Policy KS3. For this reason, policy S5 of the Framework is not engaged.
St Leonards and St Ives, appeal 6012115, ¶25

Nor can S5(1)(j), the unmet-need route, be used to get round GB7:

However, policy S5 is a general policy relating to development outside settlements and does not displace the specific Green Belt provisions of policy GB7 which apply to this site.
Beare Green, appeal 6008528, ¶8

Two consequences follow for anyone arguing a Green Belt case. First, the GB7 categories are where the effort goes: a scheme that can be brought within one of them, most often grey belt with the sustainable-location limb, avoids the test altogether. Second, a village washed over by the Green Belt is not a settlement for the Framework, so S4 is not engaged either; the Fobbing letter sets out the whole route (¶49).

The Navigator's Green Belt route asks the same questions step by step.

What has counted, and what has not #

The register below holds every decision we have found that applied the test. Read together, they show a settled pattern.

What has worked #

A real fallback that is no less harmful. Giles House Farm: an extant permission for a smaller garage, with the proposal "no more harmful than the fallback position" (¶10), plus parking taken off open land. Councils have accepted a Class Q consent plus a cut in volume (Dodford) and a larger-home prior approval (Hollywood). A fallback that would cause less harm gets limited weight (Branford Wells, ¶35), and a fallback that could be built as well as the scheme gets moderate weight (Chobham).
A need that can only be met on the site. Rural workers' dwellings are not a GB7 category, so a new one is inappropriate; three councils have treated a verified HO11(1)(a) essential need as very special circumstances (Shrewley, Pinley Green, Shenstone). The same need without objective evidence failed at appeal (Mill Bank, Sowerby Bridge). The farm shop at Kings Coughton and the hotel kitchen at Illingworth were found on the same logic: the business need is tied to the place.
Specialist need and community facilities. A care home on an enclosed, burnt-out site (Handforth) and a junior football clubhouse (East Molesey), both at committee.
Renewable energy. GB6(3) says so in terms, and the Secretary of State applied it to offshore wind transmission assets in September 2026, under the 2024 text.

What has not: general housing need #

No housing appeal has found very special circumstances under the 2026 Framework. The homes get weight, often substantial weight under HO7, and then the weight is moderated for scale or location, and in every case it falls short of "clearly".

Decision	Homes	Supply	Weight to the homes
Hatton Station, appeal 6006637	28, all affordable	1.96 years	"very significant weight" to the housing benefit (¶57); benefits "in cumulative terms, be substantial" (¶60). Not clearly outweighing.
South Nutfield, appeal 6009966	up to 5	significant shortfall	"substantial weight" (¶39). Not clearly outweighing (¶45).
Kingsley, appeal 6005495	6 (conversion) + 1	no five-year supply	"substantial weight to the provision of six new dwellings" (¶36).
Ware, appeal 6006224	up to 4	3.4 to 3.7 years	"substantial weight" (¶32).
Langley, appeal 6010253	1	3.3 to 3.8 years	"significant weight" (¶32).
Copthorne, appeal 6011736	7	2.17 years	substantial weight to the homes, but "Overall, the benefits would be moderate" (¶16).
Newchapel, appeal 6011972	8	1.92 years	as Copthorne: "moderate" overall (¶16).
Chalfont St Peter, appeal 6009281	4	1.98 years	"only of moderate significance being for only 4 dwellings" (¶24).
Newchapel, appeal 6010313	5	1.97 years	"moderate" (¶33), "modest" (¶38).
Lydiate, appeal 6008723	up to 4	not stated	"moderate weight" (¶31).
Lingfield, appeal 6008688	1	1.92 years	"moderate weight", the need having "already" counted under GB7 (¶34).
Halsall, appeal 6007428	1 to 3	no five-year supply	"moderate weight" (¶25).
Well Hill, appeal 6012481	up to 6	2.96 years	effect on supply "small"; car dependence "moderates the benefit" (¶42).
Chalfont St Giles, appeal 6011889	1	no adequate supply	substantial weight under HO7, but the benefit of one dwelling "limited" (¶23).
Newcastle-under-Lyme, appeal 6007668	1	not stated	benefits "modest" (¶47).

The reasoning is the same every time, and Hatton Station states it most fully:

The scheme’s benefits would, in cumulative terms, be substantial. However, such benefits would not clearly outweigh the substantial harm identified to the Green Belt (including harm derived from loss of openness), as well as limited harm in a character and appearance sense, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
Hatton Station, appeal 6006637, ¶60

Where officers have found very special circumstances for market and affordable housing, at Basildon twice, members have refused and the appeals are pending. Planning Geek's note on the South Nutfield decision puts the lesson in a heading: "Housing need was not enough to amount to very special circumstances". Livedin's explainer of the Green Belt route says the same from the other side: "Without one of those routes you would have to show very special circumstances, which is a high bar and rarely met."

Two cautions about the dataset. Appeals are council refusals, so the pool is biased towards weaker schemes; the council approvals come from the authorities whose reports we could reach. And the test is young in this form: the first inquiry decisions on large Green Belt housing schemes refused on very special circumstances (Basildon, Three Rivers, Tring) have not yet been issued.

The decisions #

Every decision letter in our corpus (1,508 letters) was searched for the phrase "very special circumstances", and every decision in our database (1,064 decisions, 951 under the August 2026 Framework) for a finding under GB6. 104 letters use the phrase. Each was read and classified. 85 decisions applied the test and are listed with the sentence that decided them; 41 letters found the development not inappropriate and so never reached it. The quotation from each letter is checked against the letter, and its paragraph number is proved from the letter, when this page is built. The build fails if a letter in the corpus uses the phrase and has no row here. Dataset as at 2 October 2026.

Found: 2 at appeal, 1 by the Secretary of State, 8 by councils

Found by officers, refused by members

Not found: 65 at appeal, 7 by councils

Not inappropriate, so not required

Very special circumstances found #

Illingworth #

allowed

Appeal 6010078, 1 September 2026, ¶14. Single-storey extension to catering kitchen of hotel / holiday-let premises (former pub)

I therefore attach greater than substantial weight to the other considerations, such that the very special circumstances needed to justify the proposals have been demonstrated.

A small kitchen extension to a hotel. The appeal planning officer found a clear business need, "very limited" openness harm and that "it is purely ambiguity that has led to the conclusion on inappropriate development" (¶14); the inspector adopted the report and allowed the appeal (¶15). One of only two appeal decisions under the 2026 Framework to find very special circumstances.

Stourbridge #

allowed

Appeal 6010859, 17 August 2026, ¶14. Enlargement of an approved detached garage (approved under 22/01089/FUL and a 2020 permission)

Such considerations would clearly outweigh the harm identified to the Green Belt so as to amount to the ‘very special circumstances’ necessary to justify the proposal.

A detached domestic garage, conceded to be inappropriate. An extant 2020 permission for a smaller garage was a real fallback that would be no more harmful (considerable weight, ¶10), and the larger garage would take parking off open land (significant weight, ¶12). Decided on 17 August 2026, the Framework's first day.

Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets #

approved

Secretary of State EN020032, Fylde / South Ribble / Blackpool / Preston (Lancashire), 14 September 2026. DCO for offshore and onshore transmission assets for two consented offshore wind farms - export cables, landfall, onshore cables, two onshore substations in the Green Belt and 400 kV connection to Penwortham

The Secretary of State's decision on the Morgan and Morecambe offshore wind transmission assets, a Development Consent Order decided under the December 2024 text. The letter found that "the very special circumstances, in terms of the significant increase in production of renewable energy, now clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm" (¶7.16), reversing the examining authority. GB6(3) carries the same renewable-energy provision into the 2026 Framework.

Shrewley #

approved

Delegated W/26/0134, Warwick, 28 August 2026. Outline (access only) for a single-storey self-build essential rural worker's dwelling replacing a temporary caravan at an equine rehabilitation and farriery business

if there is a genuine, well demonstrated need for a worker to be present on site at most times of the day and night, then this should represent very special circumstances
Shrewley, W/26/0134, officer report, Green Belt section; as recorded in the case file

A permanent rural worker's dwelling at an equine rehabilitation yard. Warwick District Council held that a new dwelling is not a GB7 category, so it is inappropriate, and treated the essential need under HO11(1)(a), verified by an independent consultant, as very special circumstances.

Pinley Green #

approved

Delegated W/25/0302, Warwick, 21 August 2026. Three-bedroom cottage-style rural worker's dwelling (150 m² footprint) with detached garage replacing a temporary log cabin at an equestrian enterprise

The same council template: a three-bedroom rural worker's house replacing a temporary log cabin at an equestrian enterprise, inappropriate development justified by the essential need.

Shenstone #

approved

Delegated 26/00849/FUL, Lichfield, 26 August 2026. Self-build permanent rural worker's dwelling replacing a temporary mobile home at an equestrian enterprise

the established and continuing essential need for a rural worker to live on the site, together with the replacement and removal of the existing temporary accommodation and the proposed occupancy restriction, are considered to amount to very special circumstances
Shenstone, 26/00849/FUL, officer report, Principle; as recorded in the case file

A permanent rural worker's house replacing a mobile home at an equestrian yard.

Dodford #

approved

Delegated 25/01429/FUL, Bromsgrove, 21 August 2026. Demolition of stables and an agricultural building (the latter with Class Q approval) and construction of one four-bedroom dwelling

125.4 cubic metres less volume and 19.1 square metres less footprint
Dodford, 25/01429/FUL, delegated report; as recorded in the case file

A new house in place of a barn with Class Q consent and some stables. It failed GB7(1)(b), (e) and (g)(iii), so it was inappropriate. The Class Q fallback, combined with a net reduction in built volume, was held to be very special circumstances.

Hollywood #

approved

Delegated 26/00434/FUL, Bromsgrove, 11 September 2026. Demolition of a bungalow and erection of a part two-storey replacement self-build dwelling

A replacement self-build house about 21% larger in floor area than the bungalow it replaces, so "materially larger" under GB7(1)(b). Very special circumstances were found in a larger-home extension prior approval, which would give a bigger building than the proposal, together with a child's medical needs.

Handforth #

approved

Committee 25/2053/FUL, Cheshire East, 19 August 2026. 68-bed care home (residential, nursing, dementia) on site of former nursing home destroyed by fire

It is what might be considered to be a very good example of a grey belt site
Handforth, 25/2053/FUL, officer report, ¶11.4; as recorded in the case file

A 68-bed care home on the enclosed site of a burnt-out nursing home. Officers found grey belt and a sustainable location, but treated the care home as housing, so the Golden Rules applied and no affordable housing meant GB7(1)(g)(iv) failed. Very special circumstances were then found in the specialist housing need (significant weight), the site's previously developed character and employment.

East Molesey #

approved

Committee 2025/1444, Elmbridge, 15 September 2026. Replacement clubhouse pavilion (c.680 sqm) for junior football club, replacing five scattered structures; bin and cycle stores

A replacement clubhouse for a junior football club, more than three times the footprint of the five structures it replaces. Officers held it failed the "impact on openness is minimised" condition in GB7(1)(f)(iv), so it was inappropriate, and found very special circumstances in the community sports need and the consolidation of buildings. The committee approved.

Kings Coughton #

approved

Delegated 26/01447/FUL, Stratford-on-Avon, 28 September 2026. Retrospective farm shop building with decking, lighting and parking, and change of use of land to retail

The proposed development is therefore considered to be inappropriate in the Green Belt, which is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances
Kings Coughton, 26/01447/FUL, officer report, p.6

A retrospective farm shop on an egg farm. The officer went through every GB7(1) category and found none applied. The very special circumstances accepted were that the farm can lawfully sell its eggs direct to the public only at the holding, and that the shop brings about a fifth of its income. The report's conclusion says the need "would outweigh the harm", without the word "clearly".

Found by officers, not by members #

Wickford/Billericay #

refused

Committee 25/01188/OUT, Basildon, 19 August 2026. Outline, up to 71 dwellings (50% affordable), SuDS basin, access from London Road

Having regard to the acute housing need within the Borough, the significant affordable housing provision … officers conclude that Very Special Circumstances exist
Wickford/Billericay, 25/01188/OUT, officer report, ¶1.1.6; as recorded in the case file

71 homes, half affordable, on the edge of Wickford. Officers accepted the site was not grey belt (it makes a strong contribution to purpose (a)) but recommended approval on very special circumstances: a 2.05-year supply, 36 affordable homes and biodiversity net gain well above 10%. Members disagreed 4 to 2. The non-determination appeal is pending.

Billericay #

refused

Committee 25/01190/OUT, Basildon, 19 August 2026. Outline, up to 56 dwellings (50% affordable), SuDS, access from London Road (A129)

Very Special Circumstances exist and … clearly outweigh the identified Green Belt harm
Billericay, 25/01190/OUT, officer report, ¶1.5; as recorded in the case file

Up to 56 homes, half affordable, at Crays Hill. Officers found very special circumstances in a supply of about two years, 28 affordable homes, bus enhancements and a speed-limit reduction. Members refused on purpose (b): the site is a substantial part of a gap of about 2.3 km between towns.

Not found: housing #

Appeals on new homes, conversions, replacement dwellings and residential caravans, newest first.

Newchapel #

dismissed

Appeal 6010313, 4 September 2026, ¶38. Conversion of agricultural building to five dwellings with parking and landscaping

I give modest weight to the provision of additional dwellings and social and economic benefits, and limited weight to the fallback position. However, the other considerations would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist.

Five barn conversions in Tandridge, at a 1.97-year supply. The homes got "moderate" weight at ¶33 and "modest" at ¶38; a Class Q fallback got limited weight because it "would cause less harm overall" (¶35).

Mill Bank #

dismissed

Appeal 6008062, 3 September 2026, ¶29. Temporary rural worker's dwelling on a smallholding

Taken together, I conclude that the considerations advanced in support of the proposal do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the other harm that I have identified and, therefore, the very special circumstances required to justify a grant of planning permission have not been demonstrated.

A rural worker's dwelling claimed on essential need, without objective evidence of it. Compare the three council approvals above, where the need was verified.

Newcastle-under-Lyme #

dismissed

Appeal 6007668, 29 September 2026, ¶48. Outline for one serviced self-build plot (all matters reserved except access and scale) in an open field beyond the end of Shut Lane Head

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist.

A self-build dwelling on a ruin near Newcastle-under-Lyme, three times the footprint of the brick building it replaced. One dwelling's benefits "would, taken together, be modest" (¶47).

Fobbing #

dismissed

Appeal 6009919, 29 September 2026, ¶46. Covered pool and single-storey "eco annexe" with green roof on a former builder's yard behind two High Road houses

The other considerations above do not clearly outweigh the harm arising from inappropriateness and other harm. The very special circumstances required to justify the proposal do not, therefore, exist.

A covered pool and annexe in a washed-over village. The same letter holds that such a village is not a settlement, so S4 is not engaged, and that for inappropriate development "Policy S5 does not apply to it either" (¶49).

Caldy #

dismissed

Appeal 6010411, 29 September 2026, ¶21. Permission in principle for up to three dwellings on horse-grazing paddocks next to a ribbon of houses on Telegraph Road

Other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Therefore, there are no very special circumstances that apply.

modest visual and spatial openness harm; substantial weight at DL 15 but "significant weight" at DL 21; VSC not shown. As recorded in the case file.

Langley #

dismissed

Appeal 6010253, 28 September 2026, ¶35. Permission in principle for one dwelling on a 0.1 ha part of an open field beyond the edge of Langley

I find that the benefits, whilst they would be significant, would not clearly outweigh the totality of this harm. Consequently, the VSC necessary to justify the proposal do not exist in this case.

Permission in principle for one home at Langley, with significant weight to the dwelling at a supply of 3.3 to 3.8 years (¶32). The avoidance of highway harm "does not amount to a benefit" (¶34).

Ware #

dismissed

Appeal 6006224, 28 September 2026, ¶33. Permission in principle for 1 to 4 dwellings on undeveloped land in the Green Belt between Hertford and Ware

Those I have identified would not attract sufficient weight to clearly outweigh the totality of the harm and subsequent development plan conflict. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with Policies GB6 and GB7 of the Framework. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist.

Up to four units at Ware Park, with substantial weight to the homes (¶32) and a note that "a series of ‘ordinary’ factors are capable of generating" very special circumstances (¶31).

Chalfont St Giles #

dismissed

Appeal 6011889, 25 September 2026, ¶23. Conversion and single-storey side extension of a stable building to a one-bedroom dwelling, with a new garden, gravel driveway and boundary hedging

However, the limited benefits that would accrue from the provision of one dwelling and the modest benefits from Biodiversity Net Gain are consequently not considerations that clearly outweigh the harm arising from inappropriateness and other harm. The VSCs required to justify the proposal do not, therefore, exist.

A stable converted to a one-bedroom home in the Chilterns National Landscape. Substantial weight to a home under HO7, but the benefit of one dwelling was "limited".

Hatton Station #

dismissed

Appeal 6006637, 23 September 2026, ¶60. 28 dwellings (100% affordable, 75% social rent / 25% shared ownership) with access, parking, landscaping, POS

The scheme’s benefits would, in cumulative terms, be substantial. However, such benefits would not clearly outweigh the substantial harm identified to the Green Belt (including harm derived from loss of openness), as well as limited harm in a character and appearance sense, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

28 affordable homes by Hatton station, after a hearing, at a 1.96-year supply. "Very significant weight" to the housing benefit (¶57) and considerable weight to the economic benefits (¶58) did not clearly outweigh. The strongest housing case to fail so far.

Chalfont St Peter #

dismissed

Appeal 6009281, 23 September 2026, ¶26. Outline permission for up to 4 dwellings (access only) on manège and part of a residential garden

Accordingly, the harm to the Green Belt is not clearly outweighed by the other considerations identified and therefore the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

Four homes at Chalfont St Peter at 1.98 years: the housing benefit "is only of moderate significance being for only 4 dwellings" (¶24).

Lingfield #

dismissed

Appeal 6008688, 23 September 2026, ¶38. Erection of a two-storey detached self-build dwelling (Passivhaus-style, M4(3))

Taking all matters into account, I find that the other considerations advanced in favour of the proposal do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the significant harm to openness that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify development in the Green Belt do not exist.

One home at Lingfield at 1.92 years. Moderate weight to the dwelling, because the unmet need "has already been taken into account" under GB7 and one home makes a limited contribution (¶34).

Lydiate #

dismissed

Appeal 6008723, 23 September 2026, ¶31. Permission in principle for up to 4 bungalows on former pig and poultry farm land behind a scheme under construction

I give moderate weight to the provision of additional dwellings. However, the other considerations would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist.

Up to four bungalows at Lydiate. The absence of technical objections "would be a neutral matter" (¶29).

Halton #

dismissed

Appeal APP/A2335/C/26/3378663, 23 September 2026. Enforcement appeals A-C (3378663/4/5): material change of use of field to storage of caravans and significant land-level changes (appellants claimed a 3-pitch traveller site)

An enforcement appeal at Halton after a hearing: "development that has never been lawful … is not capable of rendering land PDL" (¶30), so GB7(1)(e) failed. The letter is held as a PDF, not in the text corpus.

Well Hill #

dismissed

Appeal 6012481, 22 September 2026, ¶52. Outline (all matters reserved), residential development of up to six dwellings (claimed self-build), offset by removing adjoining commercial buildings

The very special circumstances necessary to justify the development therefore do not exist.

Up to six homes by the M25 at 2.96 years. The letter cuts the housing benefit for the location: "the lack of realistic alternatives to travel by car moderates the benefit arising from additional housing in this particular location" (¶42).

Copthorne #

dismissed

Appeal 6011736, 22 September 2026, ¶18. Seven two-storey dwellings with access, garaging and parking (Asprey Homes Southern)

The very special circumstances necessary to justify the development therefore do not exist.

Seven houses at Copthorne at a 2.17-year supply: substantial weight to the homes, but "Overall, the benefits would be moderate in this case" once scale was taken into account (¶16).

Halsall #

dismissed

Appeal 6007428, 22 September 2026, ¶27. Permission in principle for 1-3 dwellings

Taken together, I attach moderate weight to those considerations. However, they do not clearly outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness, the harm to openness and the other harm identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

One to three homes at Halsall. The letter then records that S5(5) "is not engaged" for inappropriate development (¶28).

Kingswood #

dismissed

Appeal 6003001, 21 September 2026, ¶41. Demolition of curtilage-listed stables (in dwelling use) and erection of a relocated single-storey 3-bed "replacement" dwelling in an open field

In the circumstances the very special circumstances necessary to outweigh the harm resulting from inappropriate development within the Green Belt along with the additional harm described not been demonstrated.

inappropriate; materially greater effect on openness, visual and spatial. As recorded in the case file.

St Leonards and St Ives #

dismissed

Appeal 6012115, 2 October 2026, ¶25. Static caravan used as rental accommodation, with a new access from Grange Road, gravel paths and driveway, and decking (part retrospective)

The other considerations in this case, as detailed above, do not have sufficient cumulative weight to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify this development do not exist.

A static caravan let as a home on garden land. The letter adds: "For this reason, policy S5 of the Framework is not engaged" (¶25).

South Nutfield #

dismissed

Appeal 6009966, 18 September 2026, ¶45. Permission in principle for up to 5 dwellings on a paddock

While the identified housing benefits carry substantial weight and the economic benefits carry moderate weight, they are insufficient to clearly outweigh the Green Belt, openness, sustainability and character harms.

Up to five homes at South Nutfield, grey belt conceded, failed on the sustainable-location limb. Substantial weight to the homes was not enough.

Newchapel #

dismissed

Appeal 6011972, 18 September 2026, ¶18. Conversion of equestrian site to residential use, erection of eight detached dwellings

The very special circumstances necessary to justify the development therefore do not exist.

Eight houses at Newchapel at 1.92 years, by the same inspector in the same words as Copthorne: moderate benefit overall (¶16).

Radcliffe #

dismissed

Appeal 6007316, 17 August 2026, ¶26. Permission in principle for up to 4 dwellings on equestrian land (stables, manège, containers, tracks)

This would be contrary to the Framework referred to above, unless very special circumstances (VSC) have been demonstrated.

Dated 17 August 2026 and decided on the December 2024 text.

Beare Green #

dismissed

Appeal 6008528, 16 September 2026, ¶40. Retention of the pre-existing dwelling following erection of the replacement dwelling permitted in 2017 (MO/2016/2052), with new driveway

The limited benefits identified do not clearly outweigh those harms and very special circumstances do not exist.

The letter also holds that S5 "does not displace the specific Green Belt provisions of policy GB7" (¶8).

Dronfield #

dismissed

Appeal 6011330, 15 September 2026, ¶24. Outline (appearance, scale, layout) — demolition of equestrian buildings and replacement with one custom/self-build dwelling

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

harm to openness but below "substantial harm" threshold; minor encroachment (purpose c), potentially offset if polytunnel/hay store/glasshouse removed. As recorded in the case file.

Albrighton #

dismissed

Appeal 6010260, 11 September 2026, ¶31. Permission in principle for 1 or 2 detached dwellings in the garden of a rural cottage (site of former cottages)

Taken together, the adverse impacts of granting permission in principle would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

One or two houses at Albrighton. The letter gives Green Belt harm substantial weight under GB6 (¶30) but concludes in the December 2024 "significantly and demonstrably" formula, without saying in terms that very special circumstances do not exist.

Kingsley #

dismissed

Appeal 6005495, 10 September 2026, ¶37. Conversion of farm buildings at a Grade II* farmstead to dwellings, removal of later additions, farmhouse extension, and a new-build "replacement" dwelling (six dwellings in total) (non-determination)

The other considerations also do not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm and the other harms I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

Six homes by conversion and one new build at Kingsley, with substantial weight to the homes (¶36). The same paragraph runs the S5 "substantially outweighed" test and the GB6(2) test one after the other, and the proposal fails both.

North Weald Bassett #

dismissed

Appeal 6007030, 10 September 2026, ¶18. Demolition of 1960s bungalow and garage; two-storey replacement self-build dwelling

Whilst the proposed replacement dwelling would lead to improved accommodation and likely have limited short term economic benefits; these do not amount to a very special circumstance.

improved accommodation and short-term economic benefit not VSC; neutral on housing stock. As recorded in the case file.

Kingsley #

dismissed

Appeal 6005497, 10 September 2026, ¶37. Listed building consent for conversion of farm buildings, removal of later additions, farmhouse extension and new-build dwelling at Grade II* Manor House Farm (non-determination)

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

Appeal B at Kingsley, decided with 6005495.

Not found: extensions, outbuildings and other uses #

Headley #

dismissed

Appeal 6005433, 9 September 2026, ¶37. Retention of two containers used for storage purposes

The other considerations in relation to the proposal do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

inappropriate; moderate openness harm, spatial and visual; VSC not shown. As recorded in the case file.

Hatfield #

dismissed

Appeal 6010292, 9 September 2026, ¶25. Retrospective replacement of a garden outbuilding (hobby vehicle/aircraft store) with a larger steel-framed building

In this case, on the evidence available to me, there appear to be no such other considerations of any significant weight. It follows that the harm to the green belt is not outweighed.

inappropriateness and substantial loss of openness. As recorded in the case file.

Blakedown #

dismissed

Appeal 6010714, 9 September 2026, ¶25. Two-storey side extension, replacement single-storey rear extensions, front garage and entrance canopy

Therefore, they do not represent the very special circumstances required.

limited overall loss of openness — side extension forward and two-storey visible from road. As recorded in the case file.

Stockton on the Forest #

dismissed

Appeal 6008579, 8 September 2026, ¶29. Retrospective single-storey and first-floor side extensions to a converted agricultural building

Consequently, the very special circumstances which are necessary to justify the development do not exist.

considerable added bulk; spatial harm; visual harm limited by screening. As recorded in the case file.

Kerridge #

dismissed

Appeal 6009068, 7 September 2026, ¶46. Part demolition of flat-roof garage and first-floor extension over the garage to form living accommodation (non-determination appeal)

They do not individually or cumulatively cross the high threshold of clearly outweighing the harm to the Green Belt and to openness or the ‘other’ harm to the character and appearance of the CA.

inappropriate; limited visual (not spatial) openness harm as no footprint increase; no conflict with GB2 purposes. As recorded in the case file.

Brocton #

dismissed

Appeal 6010165, 7 September 2026, ¶21. Replacement of stables with a larger building for storing land-maintenance equipment, on an existing concrete pad, with permeable access paving

As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify this development do not exist.

inappropriateness and openness harm. As recorded in the case file.

Bean #

dismissed

Appeal 6008745, 4 September 2026, ¶23. Part single / part two-storey side extensions to a dwelling

There are no other considerations to clearly outweigh the harm I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist and the proposal would fail to accord with the Green Belt aims set out in Policy M12 of the LP and the Framework.

limited openness harm; no VSC. As recorded in the case file.

Horton #

dismissed

Appeal 6009260, 4 September 2026, ¶30. Front gable, front/side and rear/side extensions, raised ridge, six dormers with Juliet balconies to a 1960s semi-detached bungalow

The other considerations put forward in favour of the proposal only carry limited weight and, as such, do not clearly outweigh the harm identified; accordingly the very special circumstances needed to justify the development do not exist.

limited, localised spatial and visual openness harm on an enclosed island site. As recorded in the case file.

Chesham #

dismissed

Appeal 6011692, 4 September 2026, ¶15. Single-storey front extension (garage linked by covered canopy)

Very special circumstances do not therefore exist to justify the proposed development.

limited loss of openness; no VSC; absence of other harm is neutral. As recorded in the case file.

Disley #

dismissed

Appeal 6010213, 30 September 2026, ¶34. Retention of a shipping container, two timber shelters and stone hardstanding said to be for keeping four alpacas

Having regard to the other considerations set out above and the limited weight that I attach to the ecological benefits, the harm would not clearly be outweighed. The very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

inappropriate; limited, localised spatial and visual loss of openness; VSC not shown. As recorded in the case file.

Woolsington #

dismissed

Appeal 6005976, 3 September 2026, ¶35. Extensions to dwelling, three-storey ancillary annex, garage block and landscaping, with garden extended into woodland and paddock (retrospective)

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

substantial spatial openness harm though visual harm very limited because of screening. As recorded in the case file.

Langho #

dismissed

Appeal APP/T2350/C/25/3374492, 3 September 2026. Enforcement appeal (ground (a)): timber building claimed for agriculture (poultry/tractor store) and a CCTV pole with solar panel; access barred under s174(2A)

An enforcement appeal against a timber building and a CCTV pole on a smallholding. The rural-economy arguments got limited weight because no agricultural enterprise was shown (¶28); "very special circumstances have not been demonstrated" (¶30). The letter is held as a PDF, not in the text corpus.

Corbridge, Northumberland #

dismissed

Appeal 6012627, 29th September 2026, ¶22. rear extension, decking, veranda, rooflights and solar panels

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

Stoneleigh, Warwick #

dismissed

Appeal 6011601, 28 September 2026, ¶23. engineering operations, balustrade, fencing and a timber gazebo

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal have not been demonstrated.

Sowerby Bridge #

dismissed

Appeal 6003507, 28 August 2026, ¶24. Private stable block with fodder store and tack room, hardstanding and engineering works

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

spatial and visual harm to openness from new building, hardstanding and engineering works. As recorded in the case file.

Kings Langley #

dismissed

Appeal 6010273, 28 August 2026, ¶22. Retrospective raised rear patio with balustrade, fencing, steps and under-patio storage

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

inappropriate plus moderate openness harm; visible from open land east and south. As recorded in the case file.

Over Peover #

dismissed

Appeal 6008087, 26 August 2026, ¶25. Demolition of existing (partly unlawful) extensions and construction of new extensions

overall, the differences between the permitted dwelling and that proposed would have a neutral effect which does not go far enough to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to overcome the identified harm.

Extensions to a house in Over Peover. The differences from the enforcement-compliant house "would have a neutral effect which does not go far enough".

Blackmore #

dismissed

Appeal 6012008, 26 August 2026, ¶28. Rear extension, loft conversion, internal alterations; replacement garage

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

limited spatial and visual openness harm in a context of large dwellings. As recorded in the case file.

Nazeing #

dismissed

Appeal 6010709, 25 September 2026, ¶35. Retrospective use of 1.3 ha of land for storage of up to 120 vehicles awaiting repair (B8 open storage)

The benefits as presented to me are worthy of positive weight, which would be substantial overall. Against this, I must give the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness substantial weight as per policy GB6 of the Framework. I have found that the proposal causes moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt, and this is also afforded substantial weight as per Policy GB6 of the Framework. Consequently, the other considerations in relation to the proposal do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified.

Retrospective storage of up to 120 vehicles for a truck-repair business: benefits "substantial overall", still not clearly outweighing.

Spellbrook, East Hertfordshire #

dismissed

Appeal 6006716, 25 September 2026, ¶23. single-storey rear extension

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist.

Corfe Mullen #

dismissed

Appeal 6007369, 24 August 2026, ¶23. Extension to existing annexe (living room) and flue

I conclude that the other considerations in this case, are not sufficient to comprise the very special circumstances necessary to justify the approval of this proposal.

moderate visual and spatial openness harm even though screened from public views. As recorded in the case file.

Doddinghurst #

dismissed

Appeal 6010567, 24 August 2026, ¶22. Detached outbuilding (home gym and shower) incidental to dwelling

Therefore, very special circumstances have not been demonstrated.

inappropriate; openness preserved (very limited spatial effect) but no VSC; appellant's "limited harm" plea rejected. As recorded in the case file.

Old Brampton #

dismissed

Appeal 6011065, 24 August 2026, ¶18. Extension over existing garage with rear balcony

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

limited visual openness harm above flat-roofed garage; no conflict with GB2 purposes; "technical conflict" framing rejected. As recorded in the case file.

Worplesdon #

dismissed

Appeal 6009962, 23 September 2026, ¶25. Rear extension with first-floor overhang, entrance extension, full upper storey/loft conversion to bungalow and new linked triple garage (non-determination)

Consequently, the VSC circumstances to justify the scheme do not therefore exist.

inappropriate plus spatial openness loss, limited public views. As recorded in the case file.

Stourton #

dismissed

Appeal 6008866, 23 September 2026, ¶38. Erection of stables for the keeping of horses, with hardstanding, tarmac access, close-board fencing and gates (part retrospective)

The very special circumstances required to justify the development therefore do not exist.

inappropriate development plus visual openness harm; VSC not shown. As recorded in the case file.

Ascot #

dismissed

Appeal 6010236, 22 September 2026, ¶16. Single-storey infill extension with roof lantern, rooflights, front dormer to house and side dormer to garage

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist.

limited spatial harm; largely enclosed by existing building so limited visual harm. As recorded in the case file.

Albury #

dismissed

Appeal 6010525, 22 September 2026, ¶15. Detached oak-framed garage/carport (about 3.9 m high)

Therefore, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist.

demonstrable spatial and visual openness loss; no other considerations; absence of other harm neutral. As recorded in the case file.

Ryton #

dismissed

Appeal 6008659, 21 September 2026, ¶28. Retrospective change of use of land to mixed agricultural and holiday let (sui generis) with a shepherd's hut

Therefore, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

moderate spatial and visual openness harm from an isolated hut in an open pastoral field. As recorded in the case file.

Hemel Hempstead #

dismissed

Appeal 6011489, 2 October 2026, ¶18. Change of use of agricultural pasture to an outdoor wellbeing and therapeutic recreation use (daytime, by appointment), with one moveable consultation and office unit

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

An outdoor wellbeing use with a prefabricated consultation unit: the use passed GB7(1)(f)(iii), the building failed (f)(iv). Little weight to the therapeutic benefit against substantial, significant and moderate harms.

Chobham #

dismissed

Appeal 6012106, 18 September 2026, ¶20. Two-storey side extension and single-storey rear extension following partial demolition

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist.

localised spatial and visual openness harm; side extension up to the boundary beside woodland footpath. As recorded in the case file.

Lyne #

dismissed

Appeal 6008286, 17 August 2026, ¶15. Two-storey side extension, single-storey rear extension incorporating garage, front porch

As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist.

Dated 17 August 2026 and decided on the December 2024 text.

Hever #

dismissed

Appeal 6005088, 16 September 2026, ¶27. Ancillary outbuilding in residential curtilage (three offices, kitchen, WCs, waiting area), with UU to forgo an approved pool building

Taking all matters put to me into account, the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm and any other harm is not clearly outweighed by other considerations, either individually or cumulatively, sufficient to demonstrate very special circumstances.

spatial/visual openness harm and encroachment; sited further from the building cluster than the approved pool building. As recorded in the case file.

West Horsley #

dismissed

Appeal 6011691, 15 September 2026, ¶21. Single-storey rear orangery (25 sqm)

Therefore, they do not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt that I have identified, and very special circumstances do not exist.

inappropriateness plus limited spatial and minimal visual harm. As recorded in the case file.

Downholland #

dismissed

Appeal 6012188, 15 September 2026, ¶40. Yoga facility with hardstanding (retrospective), wildflower meadow, pond and orchard; change of use for beekeeping and outdoor yoga and holistic therapies

Therefore, the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development do not exist and it conflicts with LP Policy GN1 and the Framework.

inappropriate development, spatial and visual openness loss. As recorded in the case file.

Willingale #

dismissed

Appeal 6012591, 11 September 2026, ¶19. Two-storey side extension incorporating garage, and large detached garage/domestic and smallholding store

Accordingly, the other considerations indicated above do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the other harms that I have found, and the very special circumstances needed to justify the development therefore do not exist.

substantial / significant spatial and visual loss of openness. As recorded in the case file.

Outwood #

dismissed

Appeal 6011106, 11 September 2026, ¶16. Pitched roof over single-storey side addition, garage conversion to home hair salon, front porch

The very special circumstances necessary to justify the development therefore do not exist.

inappropriateness plus harm to openness from roof-level bulk visible from road. As recorded in the case file.

Frankby #

dismissed

Appeal 6012026, 10 September 2026, ¶17. Retrospective first-floor side extension above a PD ground-floor extension

The very special circumstances required by Framework policy GB6 and WLP policy WS1 therefore do not exist in this case.

significant openness harm — raises a low PD extension to two storeys, prominent; design and family accommodation neutral/limited. As recorded in the case file.

Meopham #

dismissed

Appeal 6005603, 1 September 2026, ¶26. Partly retrospective first-floor side and ground-floor rear extensions, loft conversion, porch, parking

As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the appeal scheme do not exist.

moderate openness harm; fallback (earlier permission of similar size) addresses inappropriateness and openness harm, but not design harm. As recorded in the case file.

Not found: council decisions #

Earlswood #

refused

Delegated 26/01614/FUL, Stratford-on-Avon, 24 September 2026. Two-storey side and rear extension and remodelling of a detached house

Taken individually and cumulatively, these considerations are not considered sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the identified harm to openness
Earlswood, 26/01614/FUL, officer report, p.9

A two-storey extension in Earlswood taking the house from about 374 m³ to about 970 m³. A permitted development fallback was weighed and given limited weight.

Tanworth-in-Arden #

refused

Delegated 26/01310/FUL, Stratford-on-Avon, 11 September 2026. Detached garage forward of the principal elevation and more than 5 m from the dwelling; conversion of existing garage

A detached garage in a front garden at Tanworth-in-Arden, held not to be an "extension or alteration" under GB7(1)(b). No weighing factors were put forward.

Astwood Bank #

refused

Delegated W/26/01639/PIP, Wychavon, 18 September 2026. Permission in principle for 1 to 5 dwellings on paddock land

Taken together, the benefits would not clearly outweigh the identified Green Belt harm and the additional harm arising from the proposal's unsustainable location. Very special circumstances have not been demonstrated
Astwood Bank, W/26/01639/PIP, delegated report, Green Belt conclusion; as recorded in the case file

Permission in principle for one to five homes on paddock land at Astwood Bank.

Billericay #

refused

Committee 24/01047/OUT, Basildon, 19 August 2026. Outline, up to 11 dwellings, no affordable housing

11 market homes with no affordable housing, so the Golden Rules failed. Members gave the homes "limited" benefit, "further diminished by the absence of any affordable housing".

Billericay #

refused

Committee 25/00575/OUT, Basildon, 9 September 2026. Outline, up to 49 dwellings (50% affordable), new access from Potash Road

Members regraded the site's contribution to purpose (a) from moderate to strong, against the council's own study, and found no very special circumstances.

Carpenders Park #

refused

Committee 25/2168/OUT, Three Rivers, 20 August 2026. Outline, up to 70 dwellings (50% affordable, 7 self-build plots), access onto Oxhey Lane

Up to 70 homes, half affordable, at a 1.2-year supply. Officers recommended approval as grey belt and under the station route; members held the site was not grey belt and that 1,100 m is not "around 800m", and found no very special circumstances despite substantial weight to the housing. The appeal is pending.

Land East of Tring (Marshcroft) — appeal stance review #

refused

Committee 25/01880/MOA, Dacorum, 10 September 2026. Hybrid, up to 1,400 dwellings incl. up to 140 C2 extra care, local centre, sports/community hub, primary and secondary schools, SANG (appeal pending; inquiry from 10 Nov 2026)

Not a fresh determination: the committee decided to keep defending its Green Belt reason for refusing 1,400 homes east of Tring at the forthcoming inquiry, even though officers found three benefits rising to substantial weight under HC4. Members declined to find that very special circumstances now exist.

Not inappropriate, so the test was not reached #

Letters that use the phrase only to record that the proposal falls within a GB7 category and so "should not be regarded as harmful to the Green Belt or be required to demonstrate very special circumstances". Several were still dismissed on other grounds.

Underriver, appeal 6004899 (allowed): Conversion and change of use of former agricultural buildings to a mix of B8 storage and distribution and Class E(g)(ii) and (iii) uses, after demolition of buildings unsuitable for conversion
Burnham, appeal 6005162 (allowed): Detached part two-storey, part single-storey five-bedroom self-build dwelling with access, parking, integral garage and landscaping
Cryers Hill, appeal 6005649 (allowed): Demolition of side extension and conservatory; single-storey rear and side extensions (non-determination appeal)
Heald Green, appeal 6005877 (allowed): Permission in principle for 1-6 dwellings
Burnett, appeal 6005916 (allowed): Ground-mounted solar farm (c.28 ha) with battery storage, transformers, tracks, landscaping and BNG (EIA development)
Sidlow, appeal 6006496 (dismissed): Two agricultural buildings (storage of haylage, silage, maize, equipment; winter housing for sheep)
Chaldon, appeal 6006497 (allowed): Outline permission (scale, layout and access) for up to 30 dwellings (50% affordable) with access, landscaping, SuDS and woodland open space
Knockholt/Halstead, appeal 6007121 (dismissed): Permission in principle for 4-6 net dwellings replacing an existing bungalow, garage and outbuilding
Dalton, appeal 6007163 (allowed): Conversion of former public house to a dwelling, demolition of structures and one new detached dwelling in the former beer garden (volume re-used)
Thundersley, appeal 6007184 (allowed): Outline, up to 58 dwellings (50% affordable), access, POS, play, attenuation basins, landscaping
Hexham, appeal 6007219 (allowed): Retrospective agricultural storage shed next to Breckon Hill House
Great Kingshill, appeal 6007287 (dismissed): Storage building for agricultural/land management equipment with roof-mounted solar panels
Southend-on-Sea, appeal 6007335 (allowed): Retrospective rebuild of commercial units (light industrial, Class E(g)(iii)) on PDL replacing an open-sided storage structure
Tarleton, appeal 6007484 (allowed): Permission in principle for 6 to 9 dwellings on a farmyard and land outside the Tarleton settlement boundary (Green Belt)
Martin Hussingtree, appeal 6008404 (dismissed): Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings, replacement with one larger Passivhaus dwelling
Shenley, appeal 6008668 (allowed): Demolition of stables and erection of a two-bedroom bungalow with widened grasscrete access
Biggin Hill, appeal 6009189 (allowed): Demolition of stables, tack room and hay barn; three detached two-storey dwellings
North Weald Bassett, appeal 6009621 (dismissed): Subdivision of a five-bed dwelling into two and conversion of outbuildings into a third dwelling, in the Metropolitan Green Belt
Wood Street, appeal 6009645 (dismissed): Chalet-style dwelling in the rear garden of Grandview House (non-determination appeal)
Heronsgate, appeal 6010198 (allowed): Demolition of a mid-20th-century chalet bungalow and a larger self-build replacement dwelling in the Green Belt and Heronsgate Conservation Area
Higher Poynton, appeal 6010471 (allowed): Permission in principle for 1 to 7 dwellings on a 0.33 ha greenfield roadside parcel
Monks Heath, appeal 6010578 (allowed): Permission in principle for 5 dwellings (minimum 5, maximum 5)
Sandridge, appeal 6010603 (allowed): Two-storey side extension replacing single-storey side extension, small rear infill, internal reconfiguration
Matching, appeal 6010746 (dismissed): Demolition of the existing house and garage and erection of a new detached dwelling with parking and amenity space
Biddulph Moor, appeal 6011103 (allowed): Permission in principle for up to 9 dwellings
Bricket Wood, appeal 6011520 (dismissed): Full-width single-storey rear extension, garage conversion, front extensions, Dutch gables and rear dormers to a bungalow
Bromley, appeal 6012303 (allowed): Four outdoor padel courts with 3 to 4 m mesh and glass enclosures and integrated floodlights, a WC and office building, access, fencing, landscaping and 15 parking spaces
Capel, appeal 6012763 (allowed): Detached garage (c. 36.5 sq m) and extended driveway in the front garden
Headley, appeal 6005150 (dismissed): Change of use and conversion of redundant stables to a one-bedroom dwelling
Luddenden, appeal 6014250 (dismissed): Single-storey full-width front extension
Hurst Green, appeal 6004144 (dismissed): Outline for up to 132 dwellings (50% affordable), open space, access from Holland Road
Linthwaite, appeal 6006003 (dismissed): Erection of a single dwelling (stated as self-build) on an open, treed gap in the Manchester Road frontage
Luton, appeal 6007334 (dismissed): Permission in principle for 1 to 9 dwellings on a bungalow plot
Knockholt, appeal 6007338 (allowed): Retention of an agricultural building for hay and straw storage, farm equipment and lambing (Appeal A; hard surfacing Appeal B is PINS-6007340)
Knockholt, appeal 6007340 (allowed): Retention of hard surface for vehicles and farming equipment, access and disabled access around an existing agricultural barn (Appeal B; Appeal A 6007338 is the barn itself)
Canewdon, appeal 6008122 (dismissed): Demolition of the existing house and garages and construction of a four-bedroom Georgian-style house with workshop and garage
Hitchin, appeal 6009720 (allowed): Permission in principle for one detached dwelling (minimum one, maximum one)
Navestock, appeal 6009849 (allowed): Outline (access, layout and scale) for one self-build family dwelling in the garden of a rural house
Hildenborough, appeal 6010459 (allowed): Permission in principle for between 5 and 7 dwellings on Green Belt land partly within the Hildenborough Conservation Area
Bournheath, appeal 6011301 (allowed): Permission in principle for 3 to 5 bungalows and houses
Stanford Rivers, appeal 6012043 (allowed): Erection of a three-bay cart lodge (two open parking bays, one storage bay) within the curtilage of a dwelling

Not listed: appeal 6006961 (the site is not in the Green Belt; the letter says the Framework "does not require very special circumstances to be demonstrated for development on non-Green Belt land"); appeal 6008465 (permission in principle at Oxenhope, dismissed on other grounds: "it is unnecessary for me to reach a definitive conclusion on whether the proposal is inappropriate development"); appeal 6009185 (a prior approval appeal for a telecoms mast: the inspector did not assess inappropriateness or apply the test); appeal 6010097 (Bledlow Ridge, dismissed on heritage: the council did not allege Green Belt harm and the question was not decided).