Failing the location limb makes it inappropriate

Appeal 6012115 · Dorset · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail bus stops on the A31 0.6 miles (appellant) or over 1 km (Council) away along a mostly unlit pavement; uncontrolled crossing of heavy traffic to the northbound stop; occupants heavily reliant on the car (DL 10-13)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) not-engaged grey belt and unmet need limbs not decided; (g) failed on limb (iii) alone because all four criteria must be met (DL 13)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate; moderate spatial and moderate visual openness harm from a semi-permanent caravan, independent access, comings and goings and domestic paraphernalia; VSC not shown (DL 16-18, 24-25)

A static caravan let as a separate home, with its own access, on garden land in the Green Belt at St Leonards and St Ives. The inspector held that stationing a caravan as a home is not a change in the use of land of the kind GB7(1)(f)(iii) covers, and that the site fails the sustainable location limb of GB7(1)(g) because the walk to the A31 bus stops is long, mostly unlit and ends at an uncontrolled crossing. The scheme was inappropriate, and one small home did not amount to very special circumstances. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007668 · Newcastle-under-Lyme · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail not in a sustainable location, so (g) fails whatever the position on (i) and (ii) (DL 24, 26)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) not-engaged self-build shortfall evidence incomplete and no evidence of a five-year supply shortfall; not decided because (iii) fails (DL 25-26)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; footprint about three times the ruined brick building; significant loss of spatial and visual openness; encroachment (DL 28-30, 45-48)

One self-build plot in an open Green Belt field beyond the end of a rural lane near Newcastle-under-Lyme. The inspector tested the route in detail: the quiet no-through lane itself was walkable, but it ends at the A53 with no footway, and the only bus runs six times a day with no evenings or Sundays. That failed TR3 and GB7(1)(g)(iii), so the dwelling was inappropriate. With openness and character harm and modest benefits, VSC did not exist. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006224 · East Hertfordshire · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 4 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass accepted by the Council; no contribution to purposes (a), (b) or (d) (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply, so evidenced unmet need (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail not a sustainable location, so the (g) exception fails and the scheme is inappropriate (DL 18)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate development plus spatial and visual loss of openness; VSC not shown (DL 21, 33)

Permission in principle for up to four homes on open land in the Green Belt between Hertford and Ware. Grey belt and unmet need (3.4 to 3.7 years' supply) were accepted, but limb (iii) failed. The site is 0.72 km and 1.15 km from the edges of the two towns, with services further on, reached along a mostly single-track, unlit lane with no pavement. A Connectivity Tool score of 49, in the 90th percentile for its rural class, did not rescue it. As inappropriate development causing openness harm, substantial weight to housing did not clearly outweigh. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010253 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass undisputed; would not undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass undisputed (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply (3.3 years Council, 3.8 appellant) (DL 11, 32)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail bus stop about 550 m in the village; route beyond the village edge unlit, no footways, national speed limit, incline, little refuge; supermarkets, GP and station (about 4.5 km) in Macclesfield; heavy car reliance notwithstanding small scale (DL 12-23)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; significant openness harm from building on an open field; benefits significant but VSC not shown (DL 25-26, 29, 35)

Permission in principle for one dwelling on a field beyond the edge of Langley, near Macclesfield, in the Green Belt. Grey belt and unmet need (3.3-year supply) were undisputed, but GB7(1)(g)(iii) failed: the walk to the village bus stop is on an unlit, footway-free lane at the national speed limit, and a Connectivity Tool score of 25 came with no useful detail. Small scale did not help. As inappropriate development with significant openness harm, significant housing weight did not clearly outweigh. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006637 · Warwick · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 28 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass common ground (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass common ground (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass common ground; 1.96 yrs supply, 3,466 shortfall (DL 10, 56)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail Hatton Station has very few facilities; unlit Station Road without footways, narrow bridge; bus 1.1 km with twice-weekly service; station 350 m but not "well-connected" and only partly step-free; 28 homes are "significant movement" in context (DL 14-39)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate; distinct spatial loss of openness on an undeveloped 1.17 ha site (DL 55)

28 affordable homes on a grey belt field next to Hatton Station, a small West Midlands Green Belt settlement, 350 m from a railway station reached along unlit Station Road with no footway. Dismissed after a hearing. The site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii): 28 homes would generate significant movement in this context, the location did not limit the need to travel, and the route to the station was unsafe for pedestrians. It also failed GB8(1)(b), because the necessary local highway improvements were not secured. The station fell short of the "well-connected station" definition, so GB7(1)(h) was not available. Very significant weight to affordable housing (1.96 years' supply) did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008688 · Tandridge · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass does not strongly contribute to (a), (b) or (d); limited encroachment does not preclude grey belt (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass one dwelling would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB across plan area (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 1.92-year supply = undisputed significant unmet need; no need to resolve self-build-specific need (DL 11)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 2 km to East Grinstead centre and station; lit continuous but narrow footway beside busy road; two infrequent bus routes, none on Sundays; "finely balanced" (DL 14-17)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development plus "significant" harm to spatial and visual openness (DL 19-26)

A single self-build house on grassed land beside Frith Manor, outside any settlement and about 2 km from East Grinstead. The Inspector accepted the land as grey belt and found unmet need established by the 1.92-year supply. However, the site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3 even though a lit, continuous footway and bus stops were close by. The route and the service quality were not "genuinely attractive". Inappropriate development, significant openness harm and an unmitigated SPA effect were not clearly outweighed. The costs decision (separate PDF, `PINS-6008688-costs.pdf`) partly allowed costs against the Council for keeping a highway reason after the Highway Authority withdrew its objection.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007428 · West Lancashire · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass confined parcel well beyond any large built-up area; purpose (c) irrelevant to grey belt; relevant question on (a) is a "strong" contribution to restricting sprawl of a large built-up area; Annex E guidance applied (DL 7-10)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass 1-3 dwellings would not fundamentally undermine purposes across the plan area (DL 20)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply = unmet need (figure not stated) (DL 20)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 60 mph narrow hedged lane used by agricultural traffic, no footway between site and pedestrian network; some street lighting does not overcome this (DL 12-16, 19)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major (DL 20)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development plus localised spatial and visual openness harm (DL 21-24)

A PIP for up to three dwellings on a gap along a rural 60 mph lane in the West Lancashire Green Belt. The site was accepted as grey belt and unmet need was established. However, the lack of any footway between the site and the pedestrian network at Southport Road meant it failed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3, even though the distance was short and some street lighting existed. As inappropriate development with openness harm, it was dismissed on the VSC balance. The S5(5) balance was expressly held not to be engaged.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011736 · Tandridge · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 7 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass undisputed (DL 11)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass undisputed; 2.17-year supply (DL 11, 16)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 1 km / 15-minute walk to shop, school, village hall along mainly unlit 30-40 mph road with a section walking in the carriageway; hourly bus; Connectivity Tool score 52/100; no genuine choice of modes (DL 4-7, 11)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate plus clear openness harm (DL 13-14, 17)

Seven houses on an open site off Copthorne Bank, about 1 km from Copthorne's shop, school and village hall. Grey belt, unmet need and the Golden Rules limb were undisputed. The appeal was **dismissed on GB7(1)(g)(iii)**. The walk is along a mainly unlit road with a stretch in the carriageway, so it is unattractive, and an hourly bus did not provide a "genuine choice" of modes. This was so despite a Connectivity Tool score of 52/100 and £250 travel vouchers. The scheme was therefore inappropriate, and moderate housing benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012481 · Sevenoaks · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass agreed between parties (DL 11)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass agreed (DL 12)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass agreed; 2.96 yrs supply (DL 12, 42)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail undisputed poor Connectivity Tool score; nearest settlement (Well Hill) has few services; no accessible public transport; no lighting, footways or cycle lanes (DL 13-17)
• GB6(2) harm substantial harm to spatial and visual openness from up to six dwellings (1,600 m3) on an open field; VSC not shown (DL 19-21, 51-52)

Outline proposal for up to six dwellings on an open field next to the M25, offset by removing nearby commercial buildings. Dismissed. Grey belt and unmet need were agreed, but the site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii): it scored poorly on the Connectivity Tool, had no public transport, and was reached by unlit rural roads without footways. The scheme was therefore inappropriate development, and no very special circumstances were shown. Missing protected-species surveys, M25 noise and poor access visibility added to the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6003001 · Reigate and Banstead · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass field beyond farmhouse curtilage is not PDL but does not perform strongly on (a), (b), (d); grey belt raised by the inspector, not the parties (DL 2, 5)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail no details given of an evidenced unmet need for housing in the area (DL 7-8)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail "not in a sustainable location", though one dwelling would not generate significant movement (DL 7)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; materially greater effect on openness, visual and spatial (DL 10, 21, 41)

Demolition of a curtilage-listed stables building (used as a dwelling) and a new single-storey dwelling in an adjoining open field in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The land was grey belt, but GB7(1)(g) failed for want of evidenced unmet need and a sustainable location. It was not a "replacement" under GB7(1)(b) because it moved to a different site. Openness, character and heritage harms were unjustified, and no VSC was shown. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009966 · Tandridge · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass common ground, inspector agrees (DL 15)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass common ground, would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB (DL 16)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no 5YHLS, so unmet need (DL 17)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 800 m to settlement edge, services a similar distance beyond; 40/30 mph lanes, no continuous footways or lighting; hail-and-ride bus unevidenced (DL 21-23, 28)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; significant/substantial openness harm and encroachment (purpose c); VSC not shown (DL 33, 44-46)

Permission in principle for up to 5 dwellings on a paddock in the Green Belt, about 800 m outside South Nutfield. Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i) and (ii) were all common ground. The appeal failed on limb (iii) sustainable location, because the walking and cycling routes are unlit lanes with no continuous footway and the bus evidence was thin. As inappropriate development, substantial weight to the housing benefit did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt, openness, character and travel harms.

Full summary and sources

W/26/01639/PIP · Wychavon · Council (delegated) · 18 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass grey belt accepted, following the Inspector's finding on the larger site
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail five-year supply now demonstrated after SWDPR adoption (the appeal had found 1.1 years); HDT 133%
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail Connectivity Tool score 23; limited bus service; narrow, mostly unlit pedestrian routes; residents would rely on the car
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate development; material harm to openness; very special circumstances not shown

A permission-in-principle bid for up to five homes on paddock land at New End, Astwood Bank, in the Green Belt. It followed an appeal refusal of nine homes on a larger site that included this land. The officer accepted the Inspector's grey belt finding but refused on two grounds. GB7(1)(g)(ii) now fails because adopting the SWDPR restored a five-year supply. GB7(1)(g)(iii) fails because the location is car-dependent, with a Connectivity Tool score of 23 and narrow, unlit walking routes. This is one of the clearest early examples of the grey belt route failing on the need and location limbs even though grey belt status is accepted.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008528 · Mole Valley · Appeal · 16 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass established residential curtilage outside any built-up area could be PDL; site does not strongly contribute to purposes (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass Council now has a 5YHLS but HDT is below 75%, so footnote 41 unmet need is established (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail no footways or lighting on Beare Green Road; bus not shown to stop nearby; well separated from village and Holmwood station; Connectivity Tool score 25/100 (DL 11-13)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development; openness harm given considerable weight; some encroachment (DL 17-19, 31)

The appellant sought to keep an original house, which was due to be demolished under a 2017 replacement-dwelling permission, as an extra dwelling in the Mole Valley Green Belt. Dismissed. Grey belt and unmet need were accepted: the Council has a five-year supply, but its HDT is below 75%. Limb (iii) sustainable location failed on an unlit lane with no footways, remote from the village and station, with a Connectivity Tool score of 25/100. A new driveway through ancient woodland separately failed N6.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005433 · Mole Valley · Appeal · 9 Sept 2026

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass Council accepted grey belt; GB7(1)(g)(i) met and (iv) n/a (DL 9-10)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail no substantive evidence of an unmet need for storage containers (DL 11)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail rural, relatively isolated, no nearby regular public transport, so users heavily car-reliant (DL 12-13)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; moderate openness harm, spatial and visual; VSC not shown (DL 16-18, 35-37)

Retention of two storage containers on grey belt land at Headley. This is a non-housing grey belt case: it failed GB7(1)(g)(ii) because there was no evidenced need for this type of development, and (iii) because the location is car-dependent. As inappropriate development causing moderate openness harm, AGLV character harm and low-level harm to a Grade II setting, it was dismissed with no VSC.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010313 · Tandridge · Appeal · 4 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass undisputed; does not strongly contribute to (a), (b), (d) (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 1.97-year supply, shortfall over 3,000 homes = evidenced unmet need (DL 11)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail five dwellings in an area with very few homes = significant movement "in this context"; rural, away from settlements, facilities and buses; 40 mph lane without footways or lighting (DL 12-14)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; demonstrable loss of openness from curtilages and paraphernalia; VSC not shown (DL 17-18, 37-38)

Conversion of a barn complex to five dwellings in the Tandridge Green Belt, where supply is 1.97 years. Grey belt and unmet need were accepted, but GB7(1)(g)(iii) failed: the site is on a 40 mph lane with no footways or lighting, away from settlements and buses. As inappropriate development causing openness, heritage (Grade II setting), character and amenity harm, it did not show VSC even with an acute shortfall. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

25/01429/FUL · Bromsgrove · Council (delegated) · 21 Aug 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail rural site; first school 180 m away but no other facilities; bus one each way on Tuesdays and Fridays only
• GB6(2) pass very special circumstances shown by the Class Q fallback plus a reduction of 125.4 m³ in volume and 19.1 m² in footprint compared with the existing buildings

A new dwelling in place of a barn (with Class Q consent) and stables in the Green Belt at Dodford. It fails GB7(1)(b), because a replacement must be for the same use. It fails GB7(1)(e), because agricultural land is not PDL. It fails GB7(1)(g)(iii): with a bus on two days a week, the site is not in a sustainable location. It was therefore inappropriate development. Very special circumstances were found in the Class Q fallback combined with a net reduction in built volume, and the application was approved four days into the new Framework.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005162 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass no strong contribution to purposes (a), (b) or (d); previous inspector (APP/X0415/W/25/3360406) reached the same view under the 2024 text; definition unchanged apart from the removal of the old footnote 7 exclusions (DL 15-17)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass plan-wide test applied to all five purposes; former South Bucks is 14,100 ha, 87.4% Green Belt; 0.16 ha site consolidates an area between existing development; no encroachment (DL 18-21)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass footnote 41; Council accepts no five-year supply (DL 22); 0.97 years in the southern area (DL 41)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass TR3(1)(a) to (e) taken in turn; one dwelling held not to generate a significant amount of movement, so it "would therefore accord with principle (a)"; no assessment of the walking route (DL 23-29)

A single self-build house on a 0.16 ha plot in the Green Belt at the northern edge of Burnham was allowed. The inspector rejected the previously developed land (PDL) route, but found the site to be grey belt meeting GB7(1)(g)(i) to (iii), with the Council at 0.97 years' supply. The S5(5) balance then favoured approval, with the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) mitigation secured and no heritage harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008679 · Thurrock · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 5 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass not disputed that the site does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d); letter says "Annexe B" (DL 6)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass site helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment but not significantly across the plan area; would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt (DL 8)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass housing land supply equivalent to 1.02 years, from the officer's report (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass farm shop and cafe, garden centre, church, pub and recreation ground reached by level, well-lit footways; bus stop within about 100 m with services through the day, though not frequent; further facilities in Corringham within about 2 km by footway, "walkable for some but not all"; sustainable "in the context of the site's semi-rural location" (DL 10-12)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major development (DL 13)

Five houses on a cul-de-sac in the long rear garden of a house on High Road, Fobbing, in the Green Belt. The site was accepted as grey belt, the supply was 1.02 years, and the location passed the sustainable location limb on well-lit footways and a bus stop 100 m away. So the scheme was not inappropriate. It was still dismissed: building in depth behind a linear frontage caused significant harm to character, in conflict with DP3(1). DP3(3) made that a "should be refused" policy under S5(2), and the harm substantially outweighed five homes given substantial weight.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010578 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass letter says "Policy GB7(g)"; parties do not dispute that the site is grey belt and would not undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt; inspector concurs after the site visit (DL 10-11)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass letter calls this "criterion b)"; no dispute that the Council cannot show a 5-year supply, so there is unmet need; figure not stated (DL 12)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass bus stop about 391 m away with shelters, two hourly services (87 and 130) on staggered timetables; cafe opposite, convenience store, gym, nursery and others within about 500 m; Alderley Park 1 km by lit footpaths; footpath uneven and mostly unlit but usable and separated from the carriageway by a wide verge (DL 13-18)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged Golden Rules apply only to major development (DL 19)

Permission in principle for 5 homes on Green Belt land at Monks Heath, outside any settlement. Grey belt and unmet need were agreed. The contest was the sustainable location limb, which the inspector passed: a bus stop about 391 m away with two staggered hourly services, a range of services within about 500 m, and a usable footpath separated from the road by a verge, though uneven and mostly unlit. A Connectivity Tool score of 33 was treated as above average for this type of location. The scheme was not inappropriate and was allowed under S5(5).

Full summary and sources

26/01141/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon · Council (delegated) · 2 Oct 2026 · 3 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass grey belt found in one sentence with no reasons, for a site adjoining the boundary of Stratford-upon-Avon (p.8); purposes (c) and (e) then tested for the "fundamentally undermine" limb
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass the 2.21-year supply taken as unmet need for market housing (p.8), although the scheme reduces the number of dwellings from 5 to 3
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass "a well-lit and maintained footpath and cycleway into the centre of Stratford, under 1 kilometre away" (p.9)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major development; the report refers to the Golden Rules by 2024 paragraph numbers ("p.156 and 17") (p.9)

Conversion of a large Victorian house, now 5 flats, into 3 houses with extensions and garaging, in the Green Belt just outside Stratford-upon-Avon. Granted under delegated powers on 2 October 2026. The officer found the scheme not inappropriate twice over: as grey belt under GB7(1)(g), and as redevelopment of previously developed land under GB7(1)(e). The loss of two dwellings was given neutral weight. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR; page numbers are PDF pages.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009720 · North Hertfordshire · Appeal · 1 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass moderate contribution to purpose (a) (adjacent to Hitchin, a large built-up area, but partly enclosed by housing, an elevated railway and vegetation); moderate to (b) (very small part of the Hitchin-Stevenage gap); none to (d); site distinguished from the 2016 Green Belt Review parcel, rated strong; Annex E applied (DL 10-15)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass limited encroachment; would not fundamentally undermine the purposes taken together (DL 17)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 18)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass bus stops and footpaths "in close proximity" give access to Hitchin town centre; no distances or frequencies; no footway at the site frontage, left to the technical details stage (DL 19-20)

Permission in principle (PIP) for one dwelling in the Green Belt on the edge of Hitchin was allowed. The inspector found the site to be grey belt, although it adjoins a large built-up area and sits in a parcel the Council's review rates as strong, because containment made its own contribution moderate. GB7(1)(g) was met and the S5(5) balance favoured approval.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006003 · Kirklees · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass undisputed; no strong contribution to (a), (b) or (d) (DL 8)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass disputed on purpose (c); modest, contained encroachment, would not fundamentally undermine the purposes taken together (DL 8-9)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply (4.18 years in the officer report) (DL 10, 23)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass "due to the site’s proximity to local amenities, services, footpath links and public transport"; no route facts given (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g) pass not inappropriate; openness and VSC not considered (DL 11)

One dwelling on an open, treed gap in the ribbon of Manchester Road, Linthwaite, in the Green Belt and the Linthwaite Conservation Area. The inspector accepted grey belt and found the scheme not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). But the loss of the visual break and larger trees caused moderate harm to the conservation area and conflicted with DP3(1) without clear justification. Under S5(5), applying S5(2), the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010459 · Tonbridge and Malling · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 7 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d); site does not adjoin a large built-up area, form a substantial part of a gap between towns, or relate to a historic town; Arup Green Belt Assessment does not alter this (DL 20)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area (DL 20)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass evidenced unmet need; 2.89 years supply (officer report) and HDT "well below 75%" (appellant) (DL 19-20)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass passed in one sentence as "very close to services and facilities in Hildenborough as well as bus links"; no distances, route or frequencies given; TR3 not cited (DL 20)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) pass site exceeds 0.5 ha so is major development under Annex B; no evidence on the Golden Rules, but obligations cannot be secured at PIP stage, so GB8 contributions assumed capable of being met at technical details stage (DL 21)

Permission in principle for 5 to 7 homes on Green Belt land at the edge of Hildenborough, partly inside the conservation area, was allowed. The access would break a protected hedgerow that defines the conservation area's edge, causing harm at the lower end of the scale. The inspector ran HE6(4) first and found the homes and economic benefits outweighed that harm. The site was grey belt, GB7(1)(g) was met (with the Golden Rules assumed to be deliverable at the next stage), and the S5(5) balance favoured approval.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006497 · Tandridge · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 30 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass not PDL; (b) and (d) not strongly served (common ground); (a) moderate only, because ancient woodland, Birchwood Lane and hedgerows contain sprawl of Caterham, a large built-up area (DL 18-26)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not materially affect the ability of the remaining plan-area Green Belt to serve all five purposes "in a meaningful way"; common ground (DL 27-28)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass agreed supply range 1.22-1.97 years (DL 29)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) pass major housing complies with GB8 (DL 30)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass pre-school, primary school, village hall and cafe within about 850 m; shop 1.1 km; term-time school buses 150 m away; two-hourly 411 bus; gradient to Caterham a significant deterrent and commuting by bus challenging, but a genuine choice for local trips (DL 31-47)

Outline scheme for up to 30 homes (half affordable) on a field on the Caterham edge, within Chaldon in the Tandridge Green Belt. Allowed after an inquiry against a non-determination. Grey belt, "fundamentally undermine" (DL ¶27) and unmet need were settled, and the Golden Rules were met. The contested limb was GB7(1)(g)(iii). The inspector found a genuine choice of modes for local trips (schools, cafe, village hall and shop within walking and cycling distance, school buses and a two-hourly bus), even though the hill to Caterham deters walking and commuting by bus would be hard. The Connectivity Tool score of 52 was read comparatively, as the top band in Tandridge. The scheme was therefore not inappropriate, and S5(5) led to approval.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010537 · South Staffordshire · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass Green Belt Study parcel (strong for a, b, c) is high level; site judged on its own; village not a large built-up area; not next to listed towns; no historic town (DL 19-25)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass encroachment contained by housing and landscaping; would not fundamentally undermine purposes (DL 26-27)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no 5YHLS (0.87 years) (DL 28, 42)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass one sentence - "convenient access to public transport and opportunities for walking to a range of services"; no route facts (DL 28)

Permission in principle for four to five houses in rear gardens at Newtown, a Green Belt village in South Staffordshire with 0.87 years' supply. Allowed under GB7(1)(g): gardens in a built-up area are not PDL, but the site itself (not the wider study parcel) was grey belt. An executed unilateral undertaking secured Cannock Chase SAC mitigation at PIP stage. The sustainable-location limb was passed in one sentence.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011410 · Coventry · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass plot enclosed by row of houses and Ted Pitts Lane; no strong contribution to (a), (b), (d) (DL 7-10)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass not fundamentally undermine; letter also considers encroachment (c) and urban regeneration (e) within this limb (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass fn41 via published HDT below 75% (figure not stated) despite council's ONS challenge (DL 11-12)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass footpath to Allesley, closest section not fully lit, "much of the route is lit"; cycling practicable; "Nearby bus services"; no distances or frequencies; "not be wholly dependent on the private car" (DL 13-15)

Permission in principle for one house on an enclosed plot at Hawkes End, Coventry Green Belt. Allowed as not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g): grey belt, unmet need via the Housing Delivery Test, and a TR3-compliant location. The reasoning mirrors PINS-6009837 and the location finding is similarly brief.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009837 · Coventry · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass within small group of houses behind Hawkes Mill Lane frontage; no strong contribution to (a), (b) or (d) (DL 6-8)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not fundamentally undermine purposes across plan area; letter also says no undermining of encroachment purpose (DL 8)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass fn41 via published HDT below 75% (figure not stated); council's challenge to ONS figures behind HDT rejected pending plan review adoption (DL 9-10)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass footpath to Allesley, not fully lit near the site but "lit for much of its length"; cycling practicable; "nearby bus services" to Coventry; no distances, times or bus frequencies stated; "not be wholly dependent on the private car" (DL 11-13)

Outline permission for two houses on a contained plot within a small group of houses at Hawkes End, Coventry Green Belt. Allowed: grey belt, unmet need via the published Housing Delivery Test (below 75%), and a sustainable location under TR3, so not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). The location finding rests on a short description of a partly unlit footpath and "nearby" buses, with no distances or frequencies.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007484 · West Lancashire · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass purposes (a) and (d) not disputed; Tarleton is a village so cannot be a large built-up area for purpose (a); Annex E cited (DL 10-11)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass grey belt; would not fundamentally undermine remaining Green Belt purposes (undisputed) (DL 11-12)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 1.86-year supply (DL 12)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass passed on a general statement of footway, services, buses and cycling with no distances, route or frequency facts; 2024 wording that sustainable transport opportunities vary between urban and rural areas; car reliance not unusual in a rural context (DL 13-15)

Permission in principle for 6 to 9 homes at a farm on the edge of Tarleton, in the West Lancashire Green Belt. Grey belt was accepted because a village cannot be a large built-up area, and unmet need was shown by a 1.86-year supply. The sustainable-location limb passed on a brief statement relying on the 2024 idea that sustainable transport opportunities vary between urban and rural areas. The only harm was a possible small loss of best and most versatile land. Allowed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010471 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026 · 7 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass disputed on purpose (a); Higher Poynton is a village, not a large built-up area; Poynton 500 m away with sparse, discontinuous development between; purpose (c) irrelevant to grey belt (DL 12-14)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass assess the site, not the wider GB assessment parcel (PY21 "major contribution") (DL 14-15)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no 5YHLS (undisputed) (DL 16)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass meets CELPS SD2 Table 9.1 thresholds except a convenience store; continuous lit footway at 30 mph to Poynton (shops just over 1 mile); regular daytime and early-evening buses; Connectivity Tool score 52, above average for rural town and fringe (DL 17-20)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major (DL 21)

PIP for up to 7 dwellings on a Green Belt field edge opposite a ribbon of houses between Poynton and Higher Poynton. Allowed. The site was grey belt because Higher Poynton is a village, not a large built-up area. It passed limb (iii) on a continuous lit 30 mph footway to Poynton, regular buses, and a Connectivity Tool score of 52. Not inappropriate, so S5(5) favoured approval.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009645 · Guildford · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass common ground grey belt meeting (g)(i), (ii), (iv) (DL 8)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass backland in a roadside hamlet, not isolated; pavement to Wood Street Village (school 800 m, post office 1 km, more services 1.6 km) is continuous but unlit, with one crossing where the footway changes sides; demand-responsive bus stop at the drive end (DL 9-14)

A new dwelling in a Green Belt rear garden near Wood Street Village. It passed all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, including limb (iii), despite an unlit footway that changes sides of the road, because the footway is continuous and there is a demand-responsive bus at the drive end. So it was not inappropriate. It was dismissed on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (no mitigation secured), unsurveyed great crested newt risk, tree and privacy harm. The costs application was refused (copy at `PINS-6009645-costs.pdf`).

Full summary and sources

26/00855/OUT · Lichfield · Council (delegated) · 18 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass the Council's 2026 Green Belt Review parcel STO06 makes no contribution to (a), a weak one to (b) and none to (d); the site is contained by houses north and south, the road and woodland; a localised loss of openness does not fundamentally undermine the purposes
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 3.5-year supply
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass adjoins the built form of Stonnall; primary school, pub, village hall, medical, sports and shop within walking and cycling distance; public transport within about 500 m

Up to two houses on a gap plot between dwellings on Church Road, Stonnall, just outside the settlement boundary in the Green Belt. The same proposal had been refused in June 2025 as inappropriate development. Since then Lichfield's 2026 Green Belt Review found the parcel makes no or only a weak contribution to purposes (a), (b) and (d). With a 3.5-year supply and a walkable village, all GB7(1)(g) limbs passed and the scheme was approved under delegated powers. S5(5)'s "substantially outweighed" test was then applied as the default.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6004144 · Tandridge · Appeal · 17 Sept 2026 · 132 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass moderate contribution to purpose (a) — enclosed by development on three sides, tree/hedge boundaries and a sports facility; none to (b) or (d); Annex E (ex-PPG) applied (DL 19-25)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not fundamentally undermine remaining Green Belt across the plan area (DL 26)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply and HDT failed (DL 27)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass daily services within 1.7 km; bus stops 430-530 m; pleasant walking routes; cycling possible; Connectivity Tool read in local context (DL 28-32)

132 homes (50% affordable) on a contained field at the edge of Hurst Green/Oxted, decided after a two-day hearing. The inspector found the site was grey belt and passed all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, including sustainable location and the Golden Rules, so the scheme was not inappropriate. The station route GB7(1)(h) failed on walking distance. The appeal was still **dismissed**, on odour from the adjoining wastewater works, which arose late through a Southern Water objection. Odour harm "substantially outweighed" the benefits under S5(1)(j). A separate costs decision (costs PDF, 21 Sep 2026) awarded Wates full costs against Tandridge for unreasonable grey belt, sustainability and heritage reasons.

Full summary and sources

DC/2026/00141 · Sefton · Council committee · 16 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• 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 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

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.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007334 · Central Bedfordshire · Appeal · 15 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass 250 m from Houghton Regis North urban extension; contained by B579, access road, M1, trees and bunding → "weak to moderate" contribution to purpose (a) despite GB study parcel scoring strong; (b), (d) agreed (DL 19-23)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass limited scale, containment, relationship to development, level of need (DL 24)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply (c.3.93 years) = fn41 unmet need (DL 25, 29)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass lit footway to Chalton (small range of facilities, bus stops); reasonable walking distance to part of Houghton Regis; highway access for up to 5 dwellings OK (DL 25-26)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major (DL 26)

Permission in principle for one to nine dwellings on a bungalow plot near Houghton Regis. The appeal was dismissed. The inspector found the site to be grey belt and met all the GB7(1)(g) limbs, so the scheme was not inappropriate development. But the unilateral undertaking secured Chilterns Beechwoods SAC mitigation below the current tariff. Adverse effects on the SAC's integrity could not be ruled out, and a PIP cannot lawfully be granted for "habitats development". A separate costs decision (local copy PINS-6007334-costs.pdf) refused the appellant's costs application.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006286 · West Lancashire · Appeal · 14 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass agreed not strongly contributing to (a), (b), (d) (DL 19)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass fn41 — 1.86-year supply is a demonstrable unmet need (DL 20)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass council agreed sustainable location (DL 21)
• GB7(1)(g) pass not inappropriate; complies with LP GN1 (DL 22)

PIP for 4-9 dwellings on a strip of land behind roadside development at Bescar. The site was agreed grey belt, with unmet need (1.86-year supply) and a sustainable location, so it was not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). The appeal was dismissed on surface water flood risk: there was no FRA and no sequential test, and that "substantially outweighed" the moderate housing benefit in the S5(5) balance. The appellant's costs claim (costs PDF) was refused.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007184 · Castle Point · Appeal · 14 Sept 2026 · 58 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass purpose (a) not strong — site contained by road, ancient woodland and housing, no "finger" of development; (b) not engaged (Daws Heath is a village); (d) no contribution (DL 18-29)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass some encroachment (purpose c) but contained parcel with no significant strategic function; would not fundamentally undermine remaining GB (DL 31-32)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 0.91 yrs supply; HDT 2024 29%, 2025 11% → evidenced unmet need via fn41 (DL 33-35)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass agreed — day-to-day facilities walkable/cyclable via existing pedestrian/cycle network, bus stops to Southend, Hadleigh, Rayleigh (DL 37-38)

Outline scheme for up to 58 homes (50% affordable) on contained former paddocks on the Thundersley edge, previously dismissed on a larger red line in 2024. Allowed after a hearing: the site was grey belt, all four GB7(1)(g) limbs were met including the Golden Rules, so the scheme was not inappropriate. Under S5(5) the benefits (substantial weight to market and affordable housing given 0.91 years' supply and HDT 11%) were not outweighed by limited landscape and NDHA harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005877 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 11 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass undeveloped field but "physically enclosed by development and infrastructure along the majority of its boundaries"; Airport Relief Road keeps Heald Green/Handforth apart (DL 15-17)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass agreed would not fundamentally undermine purposes across plan area (DL 18)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass council's latest 5YHLS evidence shows a shortfall (figure not stated) (DL 19)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass adjoins built-up area with "good pedestrian infrastructure"; reasonable access to shops, education, public transport, though not all within SD2 distances (DL 20-21)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major (DL 22)

A PIP for up to six dwellings on an undeveloped field on the edge of Heald Green. Allowed. The field was grey belt because it is physically enclosed by development and infrastructure. Unmet need followed from the Council's supply shortfall. The site adjoins the built-up area with good pedestrian links, so it passed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3. Not being inappropriate, it was approved under the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance.

Full summary and sources

26/00918/PIP · Stratford-on-Avon · Council committee · 11 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass undeveloped paddock but Tanworth is "a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns", so no strong contribution to (a), (b) or (d); officer also tested (c) and (e) for the "fundamentally undermine" limb and found only minor encroachment
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 2.21-year supply treated as evidenced unmet need for market housing
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass footway along site frontage; village centre c.400 m, short unfooted sections in historic core; Category 4 LSV with primary school next door and a limited bus service; "not be solely reliant on the use of private motor vehicles"
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged 0.47 ha, 9 dwellings max, under 1,000 sq m, not major, so no Golden Rules

Permission in principle for 3 to 9 market homes on a paddock at the edge of Tanworth-in-Arden, a Category 4 village washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The officer treated the site as grey belt, found all four limbs of GB7(1)(g) met, and ran the S5(5) balance: limited to moderate landscape harm against substantial weight to housing with a 2.21-year supply. Committee granted 9–0, with 2 abstentions, on 9 September 2026. The decision notice is dated 11 September.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011301 · Bromsgrove · Appeal · 10 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass undisputed grey belt; no strong contribution to (a), (b) or (d); small scale does not undermine purposes across the plan area (DL 7-8)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass Council accepts supply deficient (2.24 years per costs decision) (DL 8; Costs DL 4)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass up to 5 dwellings is significant movement for Bournheath; 3 pubs and hall walkable; Fairfield school/shop reachable on 30 mph lit roads with some footway; twice-weekly bus is no alternative but county on-demand bus serves the site; Connectivity Tool 43/100 (90th percentile nationally) (DL 9-18)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major development (DL 8)

Permission in principle for 3 to 5 dwellings on grey belt land outside the Bournheath settlement boundary, in the Bromsgrove Green Belt. Allowed. All the GB7(1)(g) limbs passed. Limb (iii) passed despite a twice-weekly scheduled bus and car dependence for higher-order services, on the strength of walkable village facilities, lit 30 mph lanes to Fairfield's school and shop, a county on-demand bus serving the site, and a Connectivity Tool score of 43/100 (90th percentile nationally). S5 then applied, and conflict with the settlement boundary did not substantially outweigh the benefits. The appellant's costs application was refused (local copy PINS-6011301-costs.pdf).

Full summary and sources

26/00617/PIP · Stratford-on-Avon · Council committee · 10 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass undeveloped former Ecosite paddock held grey belt because Snitterfield is "a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns"; (c) encroachment limited as the site is bordered by development on two sides
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 2.21-year supply
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass 0.5 miles (15 min) to village centre; the report assumed the first 100 m was in the Snitterfield Lane carriageway (30 mph, no footway), but the committee Update Report corrected this, saying that with the proposed footpath link to Park Lane services "can be reached entirely on made footpath"; infrequent buses; car trips to Stratford "relatively short"
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged 0.472 ha, minor development

Permission in principle for up to 5 market homes on a paddock behind linear frontage housing at the edge of Snitterfield. The village is washed over by Green Belt, and a 9-home scheme on the site was dismissed at appeal in 2019 on character grounds. The officer found the site grey belt, passed all of GB7(1)(g) and found "significant harm" to character, weighted substantial. The officer still concluded that the benefit of 5 homes was not "substantially outweighed". Committee granted 6–0, with 3 abstentions, on 9 September 2026. The notice is dated 10 September.

Full summary and sources

25/00575/OUT · Basildon · Council committee · 9 Sept 2026 · 49 homes

• 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
• GB6(2) fail members — substantial harm to openness, conflict with purposes, VSC not shown

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.

Full summary and sources

Appeal APP/G2245/C/26/3377906 · Sevenoaks · Appeal · 8 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass council accepted site is grey belt under the revised definition; removal of footnote 7 means National Landscape / ancient woodland no longer exclude land from grey belt (DL 9-13)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB (DL 11)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 2025 GTAA need 115 pitches in first five years; no 5-year traveller supply; significant weight (DL 14-15)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass "somewhat remote", narrow lanes, service village, station 3+ miles; would fail for general housing, but "some flexibility" applied via HO12 for traveller sites (DL 16-19)

Enforcement appeal against a single-family Gypsy and Traveller pitch (one mobile home, one tourer) in the Metropolitan Green Belt and Kent Downs National Landscape, opposite ancient woodland. The inspector accepted the land as grey belt, noting that footnote 7 has been removed from the definition. On sustainable location, the inspector applied "some flexibility" under HO12 even though the site would have failed GB7(1)(g)(iii) as general housing. National Landscape harm and the policy balance pointed to refusal, but the children's best interests and the unmet pitch need justified a **temporary 3-year personal permission**, with ancient-woodland remediation and contamination conditions.

Full summary and sources

25/01052/FULMAJ · Chorley · Council committee · 8 Sept 2026 · 58 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass officers — Croston is a village, so not a 'large built-up area' (weak on (a)); LUC 2022 limited/no contribution; (b) and (d) not strong
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 3.4-year supply
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass adjoins village; Morrisons 0.5 km (7 min), medical centre 0.3 km, station 0.5 km (hourly to Preston, 16 min); buses 337/347 Mon-Sat; lit footways, 20 mph; new 2 m footways, DDA bus stops, two crossings, £100k bus subsidy

58 affordable homes on a Green Belt field at the edge of Croston, a village with a station. Officers found grey belt: a village is not a "large built-up area", so purpose (a) is weak. They passed all GB7(1)(g) limbs and recommended approval. The appeal against non-determination was already running. Members unanimously said they would have refused, but gave only the Core Strategy spatial strategy (Policy 1) and the emerging plan as the reason. They did not give a Green Belt reason.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011103 · Staffordshire Moorlands · Appeal · 7 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass Biddulph Moor ("larger village" in LP) is not a "large built-up area" — distinctly separate from Biddulph town; (b), (d) agreed not strong (DL 12-16)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass modest size, contained by development, position relative to settlements (DL 17)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass undisputed lack of five-year supply (DL 18)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass services, school, shop, pharmacy, bus stops within walking distance via footways and lighting; a modest stretch of Hot Lane without footway accepted as flat, straight, good visibility (DL 19-20)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major (DL 21)

Permission in principle for up to nine dwellings on a field at the edge of the Green Belt village of Biddulph Moor. The appeal was allowed. The dispute was purpose (a): the inspector held that a "larger village" separate from Biddulph town is not a "large built-up area", so the site is grey belt. All the GB7(1)(g) limbs were met, including sustainable location, despite a short stretch of lane with no footway. The remaining conflict with the local plan's spatial strategy did not substantially outweigh the benefits under S5. A separate costs decision (local copy PINS-6011103-costs.pdf) refused costs.

Full summary and sources

26/00845/PIP · Bromsgrove · Council (delegated) · 7 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass purpose (a) weak (Hollywood is not a large built-up area, citing appeal 3356219); (b) weak (Solihull 7.53 km away, no loss of separation from Birmingham); (d) none; (c) and (e) not fundamentally undermined
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass fn41, no five-year supply
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass 7 m outside the Hollywood/Wythall boundary (a large settlement under BDP2); footways and lighting on both sides of Alcester Road; bus stop 60 m away with regular services to Redditch and Birmingham
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major development, so the Golden Rules do not apply

PIP for up to six homes on a small greenfield plot 7 m outside the Hollywood/Wythall settlement boundary, in the Green Belt. Bromsgrove has no five-year supply. The officer ran all four GB7(1)(g) limbs and granted permission in principle. Grey belt was accepted because Hollywood is not a large built-up area and no towns would merge. Unmet need follows from fn41. The location is sustainable: lit footways both sides and a bus stop 60 m away with regular services. The drainage body's refusal recommendation on surface-water flooding was left to the technical details stage.

Full summary and sources

Appeal APP/P0119/C/26/3378284 · South Gloucestershire · Appeal · 4 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass PDL undisputed; not strong on (b)/(d); Mangotsfield treated as part of the Bristol large built-up area but site contained by roads, playing fields, dense planting and existing development so not strong on (a) (DL 34-40)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not affect ability of remaining GB across plan area to serve purposes "in a meaningful way" (DL 41)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass council accepts no 5YHLS (3.93 yrs) so evidenced unmet need (DL 42)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass sustainable location undisputed (DL 43)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged 9 statics + a touring pitch is not "major"; the touring plot does not count toward the 10-unit threshold; site <0.5 ha (DL 44-45)

An enforcement notice against a ten-caravan residential site (9 statics, 1 touring pitch) on previously developed Green Belt land just outside Mangotsfield. The notice was quashed and planning permission granted on the ground (a) deemed application. The earlier permission for 3 mobile homes had lapsed because a contamination condition precedent had not been discharged in time. But the site was grey belt and met every GB7(1)(g) limb. The scheme was below the "major" threshold, so the Golden Rules did not apply, and the S5 "substantially outweighed" balance favoured approval.

Full summary and sources

25/00751/FUL · Bromsgrove · Council (delegated) · 4 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass not PDL, but it "does not strongly contribute to Purpose (a)" (about 1.6 km east of Hopwood, not adjoining an urban edge), with a limited contribution to (b) and none to (d); some conflict with (c)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass need for specialist SEND provision accepted on the applicant's evidence; the LPA "has not undertaken an independent assessment" but has no contrary evidence
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass accepted although the site is car-based. The Highway Authority says the use "necessitates a rural agricultural setting", and remote drop-off hubs with a minibus shuttle mitigate trips.

A farm-based SEND school, with a temporary rural worker's cabin, barn, learning pods and polytunnels, on open Green Belt farmland near Hopwood. The officer used the GB7(1)(g) grey belt route for a non-housing use. Need was accepted on the applicant's uncontested evidence. GB7(1)(g)(iii) was passed although the site is car-dependent, because the Highway Authority accepted that the specialist use needs a rural setting and the minibus hub arrangement reduces trips. Permission was granted under delegated powers.

Full summary and sources

26/01458/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon · Council (delegated) · 3 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass Earlswood "a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns"; site bordered by development to north and west
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 2.21-year supply
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass passed in one sentence because the dwelling footprint lies within the BUAB of a Category 3 LSV; no TR3 analysis of routes or services
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged 0.49 ha, 1 dwelling

A replacement of a field barn with a self-build house behind a row of cottages at Earlswood, a Green Belt village in Tanworth parish. The officer routed it through GB7(1)(g) as grey belt. The report was scanned and read by OCR. The sustainable-location limb was passed because the footprint lies within the Built-Up Area Boundary. Moderate landscape harm, given substantial weight, was held not to substantially outweigh one home plus self-build benefits. Granted under delegated powers on 3 September 2026.

Full summary and sources

25/04952/EOUT · Bath and North East Somerset · Council committee · 2 Sept 2026 · 200 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass WECA 2022 parcel 82 'significant' to (a),(b) but site is small part; adjoins Keynsham, contained by Charlton Road/PRoW/vegetation, no further west than trading estate → (a) moderate; small part of Keynsham–Bristol gap → (b) not strong; Queen Charlton a village → (d) nil
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 2.5-year supply
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass edge of Keynsham, c.25 min walk to town centre, buses, DfT connectivity rating B ('well connected'), c.1 km upgraded walking/cycling route and crossing secured; LHA said sustainability 'critical'

Outline permission for up to 200 homes (45% affordable) on a greenfield Green Belt parcel on the edge of Keynsham, in an authority with a 2.5-year supply. Officers treated the site as grey belt even though the strategic WECA assessment rated the wider parcel "significant" on purposes (a) and (b). They assessed the site on its own: contained, not an incongruous finger, and a small part of the Keynsham–Bristol gap. They passed every GB7(1)(g) limb, with the Golden Rules uplift taking affordable housing from 30% to 45%. They then ran the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance and recommended approval. Members agreed 5-4.

Full summary and sources

25/2168/OUT · Three Rivers · Council committee · 20 Aug 2026 · 70 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt fail Officers: weak contribution to (a),(b),(d), site enclosed on three sides. Members: strong contribution to checking sprawl of Watford; last gap between Watford and Carpenders Park
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass Officers: lit footways, 30 mph road, hourly 346 bus, contributions; members still weighed 'sustainable location' as a (limited) benefit though several doubted it
• GB6(2) fail members held inappropriate; VSC not shown despite substantial weight to market and affordable housing

Outline scheme for up to 70 homes (50% affordable) on a Green Belt field at Oxhey Lane, on the edge of Watford Heath/Carpenders Park, in a district with a 1.2-year supply. Officers recommended approval. Three days after the new Framework was published, their addendum said the site was grey belt and also qualified under the new station route GB7(1)(h), treating Bushey station at about 1,100 m as "around 800m". Members refused 5-4. They held the site was not grey belt and that 1,100 m is not "around 800m". So the scheme was inappropriate, and the Golden Rules benefits did not amount to very special circumstances against Green Belt harm plus harm to a Grade II listed lodge.

Full summary and sources

24/01047/OUT · Basildon · Council committee · 19 Aug 2026 · 11 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass paddock adjoining southern edge of Billericay; moderate on (a) and (b); 200-dwelling permission opposite
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass supply shortfall
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass immediately adjacent to settlement; school c.400 m
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) fail 11 dwellings = major; zero affordable vs 50% default; no viability evidence
• GB6(2) fail moderate harm to openness; 11 market homes 'limited' benefit, 'further diminished by the absence of any affordable housing'

Eleven market houses on a grey belt paddock at Billericay's edge. Grey belt, need and location limbs all passed. The scheme failed only the Golden Rules limb because it offered no affordable housing and no viability case. That made it inappropriate, and the committee unanimously held that an 11-home market benefit did not amount to VSC.

Full summary and sources

25/01188/OUT · Basildon · Council committee · 19 Aug 2026 · 71 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt fail officers and members agree — site is 61% of LUC parcel WI31 which makes a strong contribution to purpose (a) re Wickford
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass supply shortfall, persistent under-delivery
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass adjoins Wickford built-up area; London Road bus network; bus improvements
• GB6(2) fail officers found VSC (acute need, 50% AH, BNG well above 10%); members did not

71 homes (50% affordable) on the edge of Wickford. Officers accepted that the site is not grey belt, because it makes a strong contribution to purpose (a), but recommended approval on very special circumstances: a 2.05-year supply, 36 affordable homes, and BNG well above 10%. Members disagreed 4-2 and resolved that they would have refused. The non-determination appeal will now proceed.

Full summary and sources

25/2053/FUL · Cheshire East · Council committee · 19 Aug 2026 · 68 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass 2015 study parcel HF01 'major' contribution, but site enclosed by housing and woodland, wedge not finger → (a) moderate; small part of Handforth–Wilmslow gap → (b) moderate; Handforth not historic → (d) nil
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 3.3-year supply plus applicant's care-bed needs assessment (569-bed undersupply by 2030) not disputed by commissioner
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass lit footway on Sagars Road; shops/bus 0.7 km, health centre 600 m, Handforth station 750 m; Connectivity Tool 59-62% (below national average, 'comparably well connected for a rural edge location')
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) fail care home treated as major development involving provision of housing; no affordable housing offered → Golden Rules failed → inappropriate
• GB6(2) pass VSC found — grey belt status, enclosed PDL site, specialist housing need (significant weight), employment

A 68-bed care home on the enclosed, previously developed site of a burnt-out nursing home on the edge of Handforth, decided two days after the new Framework was published. Officers found the site grey belt, with unmet need met and a sustainable location. They also treated the care home as "major development involving the provision of housing", so it had to meet the Golden Rules. No affordable housing was offered, so it failed GB7(1)(g)(iv) and was inappropriate. Officers then found very special circumstances, and the committee approved. The update report added a Connectivity Tool score (59–62%) and said the 2026 NPPF made no material change.

Full summary and sources

TM/25/01976/PA · Tonbridge and Malling · Council committee · 19 Aug 2026 · 350 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass Council GBA sub-areas 'Provisional Grey Belt'; contained by planting, brook and development on three sides; relevant large built-up area for purpose (a) is London (per Wrotham appeal 3347410)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 2.96-year supply; HDT 63%
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass adjoins Tonbridge (Tier 1); local parade, supermarkets, medical centre, schools within walking distance; town centre c.2 km; buses 218/219 twice hourly to town/station; lit footway/cycleway

350 homes (50% affordable) on a closed commercial plant nursery on the edge of Tonbridge, in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The site is mostly PDL, but the quantum would cause substantial harm to openness, so GB7(1)(e) failed. Officers instead found it grey belt and passed all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, with the Golden Rules met. The committee approved 10-1-2 two days after the new Framework took effect, on a supplementary report whose 2024→2026 comparison table was drafted by the applicant and endorsed by officers.

Full summary and sources

Appeal APP/P0119/C/26/3378286 · South Gloucestershire · Appeal · 17 Aug 2026 · 6 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt pass two small sub-areas within the curve of the road on Pilning's northern edge, well related to existing caravan sites; very limited harm to purposes (a) and (b); no footnote 7 constraint (2024 definition applied) (DL 13-15)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB (DL 22)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass agreed no 5-year supply of traveller pitches — target 58, supply 9 (PPTS; following appeal 6004905) (DL 16-17)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass sustainability judged under PPTS para 13; footways along/opposite the site link into Pilning village with school, surgeries, shops, pubs and public transport (DL 18-21)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged Golden Rules do not apply (DL 12)

Enforcement appeal against unauthorised residential caravans on Green Belt land at the northern edge of Pilning. At the hearing the council conceded six Gypsy and Traveller pitches on two sub-areas. The inspector found those sub-areas were grey belt with an unmet pitch need and a sustainable location, so not inappropriate. Permission was granted for six pitches; the notice was upheld for the rest of the land. The letter is dated 17 August 2026 but applies the **December 2024** Framework throughout.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007316 · Bury · Appeal · 17 Aug 2026 · 4 homes

• AnnexB:grey-belt fail 2024 para 155(a)/143(a); strong contribution to purpose (a) — open fields all round, no containing features, adjacent to a large built-up area; site-level not parcel-level assessment (DL 20-21)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 2024 para 155(b); no five-year supply (DL 22)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass 2024 para 155(c); sustainable location agreed (DL 23)
• GB6(2) harm 2024 para 153; inappropriate plus openness harm not clearly outweighed (DL 34)

PIP for up to four dwellings on equestrian land south of the A667, accessed from the end of a ribbon of houses on the edge of Radcliffe. It was dismissed. Only part of the site was proven PDL, and the scheme would cause substantial harm to openness. The site was also not grey belt, because it strongly contributes to checking sprawl. **Although dated 17 August 2026, the decision applies the December 2024 Framework throughout.**

Full summary and sources