Greenfingers Nurseries, Kington Lane, Claverdon: a step-by-step assessment

The application #

Greenfingers Nurseries asks for full planning permission to clear the buildings and hardstanding from its site on Kington Lane and build ten detached homes: four bungalows and six houses of one and a half storeys, with two, three and five bedrooms. The site is in the West Midlands Green Belt and the Arden Special Landscape Area, at the hamlet of Barnmoor Green, about a kilometre west of Claverdon village.

Who has said what #

No response from a landscape officer, a conservation officer or the county archaeologist was on the file. Every quotation on this page is listed, with its document and page, in the evidence register.

The route, step by step #

The Navigator asks the Framework's questions in order. For this site the order is fixed by three provisions. S5(5) takes Green Belt land out of the ordinary countryside policy. GB6(1) makes development there inappropriate unless it fits a category in GB7. What happens next depends on whether a category is met.

1. 1

   Is the site in the Green Belt?

   Yes, open Green Belt. The site is not in the village. The applicant's own appraisal says the development would be physically separate from the village of Claverdon to the east Green Belt Appraisal, p.8, 3.1.7.

2. 2

   Does S5, the policy for land outside settlements, decide it?

   No. This policy does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt NPPF, S5(5).

3. 3

   Is the development inappropriate?

   Yes, unless a GB7 category is met. Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within one of the categories in policy GB7. NPPF, GB6(1)

4. 4

   GB7(1)(e): is this the redevelopment of previously developed land, without substantial harm to openness?

   Contested at both steps. The Council's pre-application view and its own 2025 findings on the site point against the whole site qualifying. The openness claim rests mainly on a comparison of built volume. See previously developed land and openness.

5. 5

   GB7(1)(g): is this grey belt land, with unmet need, in a sustainable location, meeting the Golden Rules?

   No. The land is probably grey belt and the need is not in doubt. The location limb fails on the Highway Authority's evidence, and the Golden Rules are not yet met. See the grey belt route.

6. 6

   What test applies at the end?

   It depends on steps 4 and 5, as set out below.

The Navigator's result is indicative. It follows from the answers given, and the answers that are judgements are listed at the foot of the page so that any of them can be changed.

A case written to the 2024 Framework #

The Planning Statement is dated 23 July 2026 and lists the National Planning Policy Framework December 2024 Planning Statement, p.8, 5.3 as the national policy it applies. Counsel's advice, the Transport Appraisal and the Flood Risk Assessment do the same. The August 2026 Framework took effect on 17 August, before the consultation began. Several of the tests the applicant relies on have changed.

GB7(1)(e), step one: is the site previously developed land? #

This is the applicant's first case: The principle of redeveloping this site is policy-compliant with paragraph 154g) of the Framework, which allows for the redevelopment of PDL, where there is no substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Planning Statement, p.36, 10.4 PDL is previously developed land. Annex B defines previously developed land as Land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it NPPF, Annex B, "Previously developed land", and then says what it leaves out: Previously developed land excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings NPPF, Annex B, "Previously developed land". Horticulture is agriculture for planning purposes.

The two readings #

What the evidence shows #

• The certificate found two separate uses. The Council's decision of 15 May 2025 records two materially different uses occurring. When combining these factors, the uses as presented, are separate within the site. Lawful use certificate, p.1
• Horticulture still occupies a real share of the land. The officer's report records that Around 17-25% of the site area is used for the growing of plants (cover letter) Lawful use certificate report, p.7, and quotes the applicant's own sworn statement that the eastern part is primarily used as a nursery production area Lawful use certificate report, p.7, quoting the applicant's statutory declaration. The officer concluded: This presents a claim that around one third of the site has been used for agricultural uses. Lawful use certificate report, p.7 And: it is clear that there is a substantial agricultural operation occurring at the site currently Lawful use certificate report, p.7.
• The structures are almost all polytunnels. The applicant's schedule of existing buildings lists 21 structures. Eleven are polytunnels and one is a glasshouse. Together they make up 94% of the footprint and 95% of the volume (Existing buildings schedule). The planning history in the Council's report describes the tunnels when they were permitted as single span polythene tunnels for the production of horticultural crops Lawful use certificate report, p.4, planning history, 92/00782/FUL.
• Some have changed use, which helps the applicant. The same report found the tunnels now mainly shelter imported stock, suggesting that the structures have been re-purposed for storage rather than growing Lawful use certificate report, p.6.
• The case the applicant relies on had a part that did not qualify. Counsel's own account of the Lee Valley judgment is that the northern part of the site was conceded not to be previously developed land Counsel's advice, p.5, 16, and that an agricultural building means, in the judge's words, a building used for the purposes of agriculture alone. The advice treats it as settled that the buildings here are accepted to be no longer used for agricultural purposes alone Counsel's advice, p.8, 22. The Council's officer, visiting in April 2025, found an area closed to customers: This area had further greenhouses/polytunnels and there was a small area used for the growing of very immature plants in plug trays Lawful use certificate report, p.5.
• The advice is narrow. It says: My advice is sought solely upon whether those observations are correct Counsel's advice, p.4, 10. It applies the 2024 edition of the National Planning Policy Framework Counsel's advice, p.4, 10. It does not address openness, grey belt or location.

Inspectors applying the 2026 Framework have asked whether the whole site qualifies: It is logical to require that all of the appeal site must be PDL to qualify for the exception set out under Policy GB7e of the Framework, and that requirement is not met. Appeal 6011330, paragraph 9 Buildings cover about a fifth of this site, 3,892 of 19,772 square metres on the applicant's figures. Much of the rest is open ground where plants stand, not the land almost entirely covered by hardstanding and a number of large buildings Planning Statement, p.4, 2.5 that the Planning Statement describes.

GB7(1)(e), step two: substantial harm to openness? #

If the land qualifies, the question is whether the redevelopment would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The applicant's Green Belt Appraisal says the harm to spatial openness would be None and that the level of harm to visual openness arising from the proposed development would be None Green Belt Appraisal, p.11, 3.2.10.

Sources: Green Belt Appraisal 3.1.6 3.1.9 Site Areas Schedule Existing buildings schedule. The applicant gives the falls as 47% and 9.5%.

• The scale of harm is defined by volume. The appraisal measures spatial harm by the change in built volume. Its highest level is A considerable increase to development within the site which, in the context of the proposed development, is deemed to equate to a >25% increase to built volume. Green Belt Appraisal, p.6, Table 2.1 On that scale a scheme with less built volume than the existing tunnels cannot score more than negligible harm. The appraisal says it also took account of the extent, position and height of the buildings, but its scale gives them no measure, and it does not mention gardens, fences or domestic use.
• The volume being replaced is polythene and glass. Ninety-five per cent of the existing volume is polytunnels and one glasshouse, on average about three metres high. They would be replaced by ten houses and six detached garages.
• The appraisal accepts the houses are taller and would be seen. The height of the proposed buildings would be greater than those currently located on the site, however the massing of built form would be reduced. Green Belt Appraisal, p.11, 3.2.7 The proposed development would be visible in views from the footpaths and bridleway to the east of the site. Green Belt Appraisal, p.11, 3.2.7 From the ridge footpath the landscape appraisal says Panoramic, elevated views of the proposed development would be available from this path Landscape and Visual Appraisal, p.23, 6.3.9.
• Points for the applicant. Footprint would halve. The two tunnels and the glasshouse in the south-east corner would give way to open space. Four of the ten homes are bungalows. The existing white tunnels are conspicuous, and where the houses are visible the appraisal expects only the upper parts (i.e. first floors and/or roofs) would be perceptible Green Belt Appraisal, p.11, 3.2.9.

The closest decision #

Appeal 6011972 at Wire Mill Lane, Newchapel, decided on 18 September 2026 under the new Framework, is close on its facts: eight houses replacing low equestrian buildings on agreed previously developed land. There the existing buildings have a volume of between 6,130m3 - 7,270m3, a footprint of around 1,780m2 and heights of 2.9m up to 5.6m Appeal 6011972, paragraph 7, and The houses would have a volume of 6,260m3 a footprint of around 990m2 – 1,090m2 and a height of up to 8.6m. Appeal 6011972, paragraph 8 Footprint and volume fell. The inspector still found that although the number of buildings and volume would reduce, the proposed dwellings would be taller, bulkier and more conspicuous Appeal 6011972, paragraph 9, and added: The separate residential curtilages would also result in the introduction of domestic paraphernalia for multiple households as well as hardstanding for an access road and driveways which would further impact on openness. Appeal 6011972, paragraph 9 The conclusion: there would be harm to spatial and visual openness and taken together the harm would be substantial Appeal 6011972, paragraph 9.

That decision does not settle this one. Those houses were two full storeys and up to 8.6 metres. Other inspectors have found the harm from housing on previously developed land to fall short of substantial, mostly for single replacement homes. Both groups are in the list below.

GB7(1)(g): the grey belt route #

The applicant's second case is that the site can reasonably be considered as a grey belt site and the scheme meets the requirements of paragraphs 155 - 157 of the Framework Planning Statement, p.36, 10.5. In the 2026 Framework that is GB7(1)(g), which applies only where all four of its limbs are met.

The location: TR3 #

This means the location should limit the need to travel, particularly by private car, and offer a genuine choice of transport modes for residents and users

National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026, TR3(1)(a)

The Navigator breaks this into questions about the walking route, the services and the public transport, then asks for the judgement. The answers below are taken from the applicant's Transport Appraisal and the Highway Authority's response.

The Highway Authority's view #

The site is not located within reasonable walking distance of day-to-day services, facilities or public transport infrastructure. The nearest bus stops and bus services are located approximately 1km from the site, whilst Claverdon Railway Station is approximately 2.5km away. Access to these facilities would require pedestrians to travel along rural roads without the benefit of footways or street lighting.

Warwickshire County Council, Highway Authority: consultation response, p.2

Its active travel officers conclude: This application is not sustainable from an active travel perspective. There are no suitable and accessible pedestrian routes into Claverdon which will lead to a reliance on motor vehicles for short journeys. Highway Authority, p.3, Active Travel The Authority raised no objection to nine homes here in 2011, and explains the change: planning policy and the emphasis placed upon sustainable travel have evolved, and it is appropriate to consider such matters in the assessment of the current proposal Highway Authority, p.2.

The letter says the scheme is contrary to Local Plan Policy TR3. TR3 is a policy of the national Framework, not of the local plan. The Core Strategy's transport policy is CS.26. A reason for refusal would need the right reference.

What the applicant offers, and whether it counts #

TR3(1)(a) allows for a location that can be made sustainable, taking into account planned improvements, including any provided for as part of the development itself NPPF, TR3(1)(a). The applicant points to three things.

• A path across the field to the east, towards the bridleway and the school. The Transport Appraisal says a link will be delivered to connect to this pathway across the field to the east of the development Transport Appraisal, p.7, 4.3.2. The Highway Authority found that this land has not been identified within either the red-line application boundary or the blue-line ownership plan Highway Authority, p.3, and its active travel officers that no permanent access over it can be guaranteed. The surface is rough and not fully accessible. For these reasons it cannot be considered as contributing to active travel access to the development. Highway Authority, p.4, Active Travel Of the bridleway beyond: it is overgrown and its width is uncertain Highway Authority, p.3, Active Travel. The Rights of Way team has no objection in principle and adds that the applicant should obtain the consent of the relevant landowners.
• A footway on Henley Road. The Planning Statement says There is a footpath on this side of Henley Road, connecting the site with the community facilities within the village. Planning Statement, p.5, 4.2 That is the footway the Highway Authority found too narrow for a pushchair, beside 50 mph traffic, and it starts 250 metres from the site along a lane with none.
• A short footway at the site entrance. The Highway Authority's road safety advisers said at pre-application stage that it does not connect to any existing footway provision on Kington Lane. This could cause uncertainty for pedestrians. Transport Technical Note 1, p.4, 4.0, the Highway Authority's pre-application comment

The Highway Authority lists what it would want: a pair of bus stops with hard standing on Henley Road at the junction with Kington Lane Highway Authority, p.4, Active Travel, formal passing places on the lane, and a footway along the access. None is offered. The applicant's position is that it would be willing to provide fair and reasonable financial contributions towards ongoing maintenance and upgrades to the local network Transport Technical Note 1, p.5, 5.1.

The applicant's own description #

The Planning Statement accepts the car would be the main means of travel: the parking is provided recognising that most families will be reliant on a car for most of their journeys Planning Statement, p.20, 7.18, and the buses are limited services. It says the site is not an isolated location within open countryside. Two of the applicant's other reports describe the same place differently. The report on why the site cannot stay in employment use says offices are not viable due to the site's rural and isolated location, lack of meaningful public transport connectivity Economic Viability Report, p.38, 4.4. The report on why affordable homes should not be built on the site says affordable housing requires closer and more substantial local amenities and transport links, which isn’t the case for commuters who live in the Village Affordable Housing Options Report, p.11, section 4.

Fewer lorries #

The applicant says removing the nursery's lorries offsets the location. On its own figures the nursery generated about 54 (27 in and 27 out) vehicle movements per day, a figure from 2011, and the houses would generate a total of 63 throughout the day. Heavy goods vehicle traffic to be removed is on average there are 1-2 articulated HGV movements per week Transport Appraisal, p.12, 5.5.3, with some rigid lorries. So the Transport Appraisal's conclusion that the scheme would reduce overall daily traffic figures does not follow from its own numbers. The Highway Authority calls the trips low and comparable in comparison to the existing business and treats the lost lorries as an added benefit.

At Wire Mill Lane the same argument was made and did not change the result: The appellant states that there would be a reduction in the number of vehicle movements to and from the site. Nevertheless, the new occupants would not be in a location that would limit the need to travel, particularly by private car, or offer a genuine choice of transport modes for residents and users. Appeal 6011972, paragraph 14

The Golden Rules: GB8 #

Ten homes is major development, so the grey belt route also needs the three Golden Rules to be met: all of the following contributions (‘Golden Rules’) should be made NPPF, GB8(1). The applicant says the scheme will provide an off-site contribution equivalent to 50% affordable housing as part of the proposals, and it will deliver any necessary improvements to local infrastructure along with accessible public green spaces Planning Statement, p.22, 7.23.

• On-site provision is the Framework's starting point. HO8(1) says affordable housing should be provided on-site unless off-site delivery nearby would do better or a payment can be robustly justified. The applicant's report addresses the Core Strategy and the 2024 Framework, not this test.
• The case for a payment rests on a canvass of housing associations. The report says it has received a negative response from all 13 Affordable Housing Providers Affordable Housing Options Report, p.9, section 4. The canvass had a deadline of Wednesday 12th November 2025, before the pre-application enquiry was made in December 2025 (Planning Statement, p.5, 3.1). The first reason the report gives for the refusals is that five dwellings is too few units to warrant any interest Affordable Housing Options Report, p.9, section 4.
• The housing officer takes a different view of demand. we are satisfied that Claverdon would be a popular location for prospective tenants/purchasers given the scale of development proposed in this case Housing officer, p.1, 1.2. The village has only a very limited supply of such housing: 6 homes in total Housing officer, p.1, 1.4.
• No viability case is made. GB8(3) allows a viability assessment in three circumstances. None is claimed. The report titled Economic Viability Report is about whether the site could stay in commercial use: its brief was to assess whether the existing lawful use of the Site and other reasonable alternative commercial uses are economically viable Economic Viability Report, p.5, 1.1.2.

The closest decision is Hatton Station, in neighbouring Warwick district (appeal 6006637, 23 September 2026). Twenty-eight affordable homes met rules (a) and (c) and failed (b): necessary local highway infrastructure improvements have not been suitably identified, substantiated, or secured. This conclusion aligns with the position of the Highway Authority, which considers the mitigation measures proposed by the appellant to be inadequate. Appeal 6006637, paragraph 44 A willingness to pay was not enough: notwithstanding the appellant’s willingness to fund certain improvements, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that necessary improvements to local infrastructure would be delivered Appeal 6006637, paragraph 44.

If GB7(1)(e) is met: the S5(5) balance #

Suppose the site is previously developed land and the harm to openness is not substantial. The scheme is then not inappropriate, and S5(5) says it should be approved unless the benefits would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects. That is a strong tilt towards approval. But S5(2) says the benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed where a proposal would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances NPPF, S5(2). The location is not a gateway on this route, but three such policies are in play.

The other questions the Navigator asks #

The development plan #

• Location policies. The Parish Council accepts that its own Policy H1, which resists housing outside the village boundary, is now inconsistent with NPPF, Policy GB7 and should now be given Very Limited planning weight.
• Brownfield land. Neighbourhood Plan Policy H3 says The redevelopment of brownfield land to create new housing will be supported subject to the following criteria Neighbourhood Plan, p.12, Policy H3. One criterion is that The use would not conflict with any of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt or represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt Neighbourhood Plan, p.12, Policy H3. So H3 supports the scheme only if it passes GB7. It does not help to decide whether it does.
• Employment land. Core Strategy Policy CS.22 and Neighbourhood Plan Policy E1 protect employment sites. The Parish Council finds conflict with both. The applicant relies on marketing and on relocation. The marketing was on terms that the ongoing business was not for sale and that offers to redevelop the site for residential purposes would not be accepted Marketing Report, p.3, 4.1, which the Planning Statement describes as the vendor being open to all offers being considered Planning Statement, p.27, 8.13. Two of the eleven enquiries are logged as Wanted to buy the Business Marketing Report, p.10, Appendix B, enquiry log. E1 supports redevelopment that will facilitate the relocation of an existing business to a more suitable site. The business is actively looking for an opportunity to re-locate. No site is named, and nothing ties relocation to the permission.
• Housing mix. Four of the ten homes have five bedrooms. The applicant accepts these proposals do not entirely meet with this mix Planning Statement, p.33, 9.8 in Core Strategy Policy CS.19.

If no GB7 category is met: very special circumstances #

The applicant's third case is that, if the scheme is inappropriate, very special circumstances exist. Its starting point is that the harm to the Green Belt is harm by way of definition only, with no other harms identified Planning Statement, p.24, 7.29. On the consultation responses that is no longer so: the Highway Authority identifies harm to pedestrian safety and an unsustainable location. Under GB6(2) the Green Belt harm carries substantial weight, every other harm is added to it, and the total must be clearly outweighed.

An absence of harm on other matters does not add weight in favour. At Brickhouse Lane, Newchapel (appeal 6010313) the inspector held that the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the scheme Appeal 6010313, paragraph 36.

Where the applicant's documents pull against each other #

What would change this assessment #

The file is not closed. The Navigator's answers would move if any of these arrived.

• A walking route to the village that is within the applicant's control, usable all year by a pushchair or wheelchair, and secured by condition or obligation; or the withdrawal of the Highway Authority's objection.
• Evidence that every part of the site the scheme needs is previously developed land, dealing with the eastern production area and the Council's 2025 findings.
• An openness assessment that weighs height, the number of buildings, gardens and domestic use, not built volume alone.
• A signed planning obligation: affordable housing at the level the Council requires, with the justification HO8(1) asks for if it is to be a payment; the infrastructure the Highway Authority identifies; and public access to the open space.
• An emergency plan for flooding of the access, agreed with the Council, and a sequential test or a reasoned case that F5(2) exempts the site.
• A corrected biodiversity calculation, a plan for the reptiles, and an assessment of ash T20 as a veteran tree.
• A Connectivity Tool result for the site, as TR3(2) expects.
• A decision on Land North of Station Road (26/01470/FUL), which raises the same location test on the other side of the village. See the Station Road Decision Route.

Run it yourself in the Navigator #

The NPPF 2026 Navigator walks through the Framework's decision route question by question and shows the decisions behind each step. The Navigator asks which GB7 category a scheme relies on and says to run it again for each, so there are two sets of answers. Load one, then change any answer you see differently.

{
 "gb": "yes",
 "devType": "pdl",
 "units": 10,
 "heritage": [],
 "supply": "below5",
 "constraints": [
  "flood",
  "irreplaceable",
  "biodiversity",
  "treesHedges",
  "access",
  "neighbourhoodPlan"
 ],
 "gb7cat": "g",
 "gb7gPlanAck": true,
 "greyBelt": [],
 "greyBeltUndermine": "no",
 "unmetNeedAck": true,
 "tr3Footway": [
  "narrow",
  "gaps"
 ],
 "tr3Lit": "unlit",
 "tr3Speed": [
  "20-30",
  "50plus"
 ],
 "tr3SpeedEvidence": 32.3,
 "tr3Services": "800to2k",
 "tr3Bus": "minimal",
 "tr3Rail": "none",
 "tr3Tool": "notRun",
 "tr3": "fail",
 "gb8": "fail",
 "f7": "not-demonstrated",
 "n62": "no-loss",
 "n22": "yes",
 "n21d": "justified",
 "dp32c": "no",
 "tr64": "unacceptable",
 "dp3Conflicts": [
  "movement"
 ],
 "dp3": "not-justified",
 "character": "limited",
 "s6": "not-engaged",
 "devPlan": "limited",
 "homesAck": true,
 "otherBenefits": [
  "economic"
 ],
 "routeAck": true,
 "gbHarmAck": true,
 "vsc": "not-shown"
}

{
 "gb": "yes",
 "devType": "pdl",
 "units": 10,
 "heritage": [],
 "supply": "below5",
 "constraints": [
  "flood",
  "irreplaceable",
  "biodiversity",
  "treesHedges",
  "access",
  "neighbourhoodPlan"
 ],
 "gb7cat": "e",
 "gb7e": "pass",
 "tr3Footway": [
  "narrow",
  "gaps"
 ],
 "tr3Lit": "unlit",
 "tr3Speed": [
  "20-30",
  "50plus"
 ],
 "tr3SpeedEvidence": 32.3,
 "tr3Services": "800to2k",
 "tr3Bus": "minimal",
 "tr3Rail": "none",
 "tr3Tool": "notRun",
 "tr3": "fail",
 "f7": "not-demonstrated",
 "n62": "no-loss",
 "n22": "yes",
 "n21d": "justified",
 "dp32c": "no",
 "tr64": "unacceptable",
 "dp3Conflicts": [
  "movement"
 ],
 "dp3": "not-justified",
 "character": "limited",
 "s6": "not-engaged",
 "devPlan": "limited",
 "homesAck": true,
 "otherBenefits": [
  "economic"
 ],
 "routeAck": true,
 "balance": "outweighed"
}